Business before Questions

Monken Hadley Common Bill

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Health and Social Care

The Secretary of State was asked—

Access to GPs

Tom Randall: What steps he is taking to improve access to GPs.

Sally-Ann Hart: What steps he is taking to improve access to GPs.

Richard Fuller: What steps he is taking to improve access to GP surgeries in North East Bedfordshire constituency.

Stuart Paul Anderson: What steps he is taking to improve access to GPs.

Laura Farris: What steps he is taking to improve access to GPs.

Matthew Hancock: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer Questions 1, 4, 6, 11 and 20 together. [Interruption.] General practice is a popular subject.
We will create an extra 50 million appointments a year in primary care so that everyone can go to the GP when they need to.

Tom Randall: There are many families with children in Gedling. What is being done to ensure that patients, particularly families with young children, can access GP appointments when they need them?

Matthew Hancock: Obviously this is an incredibly important subject, and I know the frustration many families feel at not being able to access a GP appointment when they need it. We have a whole-scale programme of work to improve access. This includes recruiting 6,000 more GPs and 26,000 primary care staff other than GPs—  increasingly patients at GP surgeries can be treated by nurses—and increasingly enabling people, especially those who find it difficult to travel, to use technology to get the treatment they need.

Sally-Ann Hart: Hastings has a shortage of salaried GPs and GP services—locum GPs are available, at the right price. Will the Secretary of State please outline what steps he is taking to increase the number of salaried, rather than locum, GPs and GP services in Hastings and Rye?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is right to ask. It is incredibly important that we get the right number of GPs, not least to reduce the amount spent on locums, who can be very expensive and often do not know the local population as well as salaried GPs. Her local clinical commissioning group is developing a new-to-practice fellowship in Hastings for GPs starting out in practice in order to encourage more doctors into practice and then to support them. It is also working with primary care networks so that more can become GP trainers and take on students. We are expanding the numbers going into GP training—there were record numbers last year—but I want the numbers to go up again and to make sure that Hastings gets the GPs it needs.

Richard Fuller: As part of the council area with the second-largest population increase in the country, the people of Biggleswade, Sandy, Arlesey and Stotfold are at their wits’ end over access to GP appointments. What special attention will the Secretary of State pay to those areas of large population growth to make sure that increases in housing are matched by increased access  to GPs?

Matthew Hancock: That is an incredibly important point. We have a manifesto commitment to ensure that where there is new housing there is also new primary care. Just as a new housing estate will often require a new primary school and new transport links, so we need to put in the GPs as well.

Stuart Paul Anderson: I thank the Secretary of State for visiting Tettenhall Wood surgery in my constituency during the general election campaign. Will he work with me to increase the numbers of patient appointments back up to where they were before?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. My hon. Friend has already become an incredibly strong voice for Wolverhampton, and it was a pleasure to visit Tettenhall medical practice, which has joined with other GP practices to form a primary care network, which I hope will strengthen its resilience and enable it to provide extended access to appointments, which is what he is campaigning for. I am pleased, too, with the extra 16,000 appointments in Wolverhampton in the last quarter. As this shows, we are driving up the number of appointments, but we also appreciate, understand and feel the frustration people feel when they cannot get decent access to GP appointments.

Laura Farris: Changes to pension contributions mean that some senior GPs, including in Newbury, are being hit with extra tax charges if they work overtime, which is leading to the paradoxical situation of GPs paying to  work and so reducing their hours or taking early retirement. What steps is the Secretary of State’s Department taking to address this situation?

Matthew Hancock: Tax is, of course, a matter for the Treasury, and the Chancellor would not be thrilled if I announced tax policy in the middle of health questions, tempting as that may be. However, we have been working with the Treasury, and also with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the British Medical Association, employers in the NHS and others, to deliver on our manifesto commitment to sort this out.

Lindsay Hoyle: Jonathan Ashworth.

Jon Ashworth: You rather surprised me then, Mr Speaker!
The Secretary of State mentioned primary care networks. As he will know, two weeks ago GPs rejected the new service specifications in those networks. This has been described as a debacle, and as leading to more red tape and taking GPs away from patients. If the Secretary of State is going to fix these contracts, can he tell us how he is going to do it—or is he content to see more GPs walk out of primary care networks before they have even got off the ground?

Matthew Hancock: Primary care networks have been an incredibly successful innovation, covering the whole country and allowing practices to work together. Of course, the negotiations with the BMA over the GP contract are always tough: they have been in every year in which they have taken place. The hon. Gentleman will understand why I want to get the best possible value for the money that the NHS spends, but I also want to see a successful conclusion to this negotiation, and we are working with the BMA to that end.

Jon Ashworth: The Secretary of State describes primary care networks as a great success, but a local medical committee in Buckinghamshire and Berkshire has just warned that they will cost each practice £100,000 more. Having failed to deliver the 5,000 extra doctors that the Government previously promised, having failed to recruit more GPs in the poorest areas, having now bungled the negotiations over this contract, and having failed to fix the pension tax changes for which he was partly responsible, how on earth can the Secretary of State be trusted to deliver on the Prime Minister’s promise to cut GP waiting times to less than three weeks?

Matthew Hancock: It is a bit of a disappointment to hear the hon. Gentleman talk down primary care. We are making record investments in primary care, we have record numbers of GPs in training, we are seeing an increase in the number of appointments in Wolverhampton and across the country, we are negotiating with GPs to strengthen general practice, in the last year we have introduced primary care networks that help to make primary care more sustainable, we are improving the technology that is available in primary care, and, for the first time in a generation, the proportion of the total NHS budget going into primary and community care is rising, whereas there were cuts under Labour. I think the hon. Gentleman should be standing up and saying thank you.

James Murray: Hanwell health centre, which works hard to serve many of my constituents, has told me that it has been trying to appoint a salaried GP for three years, as well as a large number of nurses. There is generally a four-week wait for an appointment, although the centre has provided 75 more appointments to cope with demand. Under the Secretary of State’s plans, when will those waiting times come down?

Matthew Hancock: This is precisely why we need to recruit more GPs, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the country, and also recruit more other clinicians to general practice. [Hon. Members: “How?”] I will tell you how, Mr Speaker. In the first instance, the record numbers of GPs in training will help, but that is not the entirety of the plan. I urge the hon. Gentleman to get on board and support general practice.

Clive Efford: In 2015 the Secretary of State’s predecessor promised 5,000 more GPs by 2020. The Secretary of State repeated that promise when he took over the job, but my constituents are finding it increasingly difficult to get a GP appointment within three weeks. Will the Secretary of State now apologise to everyone who is waiting for failing to keep his promises?

Matthew Hancock: The commitment that we have made is that we will have 6,000 more GPs and 26,000 other clinical staff in general practice. That is the commitment that we have made, and that is the commitment on which we will deliver.

Tim Farron: In rural communities such as mine, GP surgeries often serve huge geographical areas with relatively small patient numbers. Coniston, for example, has a roll of about 900 patients, yet the next nearest surgery is two lakes away. Will the Secretary of State commit to establishing a strategic small surgeries fund to ensure that small surgeries in rural communities remain sustainable for the long term?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. General practice, where 90% of all NHS appointments take place, needs to reach every part of this country, including his beautiful constituency, which is, as he says, very sparse. Of course we need to ensure that the practices there are sustainable, and again this is an area in which technology can be of particular help. There is great enthusiasm for using technology so that the travelling times of patients and sometimes of GPs can be reduced.

Adult Social Care

Liz Twist: What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unmet demand for adult social care.

Marsha de Cordova: What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unmet demand for adult social care.

Caroline Dinenage: The Government have enshrined in legislation through the Care Act 2014 a council’s statutory duty to meet eligible  needs for adult social care. We have given councils access to up to £1.5 billion more dedicated funding for social care in 2020-21 to help them to meet this requirement.

Liz Twist: Figures from Age UK show that 1.5 million people aged 65 and over have an unmet social care  need, and Age UK estimates that this figure will rise to 2.1 million by 2030 if we carry on as we are. In my constituency, that equates to 3,012 older people with unmet needs and 2,517 older people providing unpaid care. Those are real people who are not getting the help they need. The Prime Minister said last summer that he had a plan to “fix” social care. Where is it?

Caroline Dinenage: As I have explained, the Care Act sets out the requirement that entitles individuals to a care needs assessment and sets a minimum national threshold at which care should be delivered. We have backed councils up by giving them access to £1.5 billion in additional funding in the next financial year. In the hon. Member’s constituency, that will equate to an additional £5.1 million from the new social care grant. This is something that the Government take very seriously.

Marsha de Cordova: According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, more than 1.8 million older and disabled people are currently going without the support that they need to live independently. This crisis has come after the Conservative Government abolished the independent living fund and cut nearly £8 billion from adult social care budgets. In 2017, we were promised a Green Paper, but there has been nothing. Months ago, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of 10 Downing Street promising to “fix” social care, so when will the Government finally publish those plans?

Caroline Dinenage: We just do not recognise the figures that the hon. Lady is parroting. Public spending on adult social care in 2018-19 reached £17.9 billion in cash terms, which is the highest level on record. Since 2016-17, our sustained investment has enabled spending to increase by 7% over this period. But do not take it from me—the Local Government Association said last year:
“This is the biggest year-on-year real terms increase in spending power for local government in a decade and will allow councils to meet the rising cost and demand pressures they face in 2020/21.”

Martyn Day: While the Scottish Government spend 43% more per head on social care, this Government’s NHS Funding Bill does nothing to address the £6 billion funding gap in England. Does the Minister accept that she cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care?

Caroline Dinenage: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that adult social care and the NHS are indelibly linked. The one must support the other, and the one drives costs with the other. The over-65 population is projected to rise over 50% by 2035, so putting social care on a sustainable footing where everyone is treated with dignity and respect is one of the biggest challenges we face in society. That is why it is one of the Prime Minister’s biggest priorities.

Martyn Day: Scotland introduced free personal care for the elderly in 2002, and this has now been extended to those under 65 who need it. Will the Minister follow  the Scottish Government’s lead and introduce free personal care so that people can live with dignity in their own homes?

Caroline Dinenage: The Prime Minister has set out his plans. He wants to seek political consensus and bring forward a plan for adult social care this year, and we are looking at a whole range of solutions, including free personal care. The issue we see in Scotland is that the initiative must be backed up with a huge amount of money. The money that the Scottish Government used to give to individuals covered around 50% of their care home costs and now only covers around 25%. That is why we must ensure that we address this issue with a long-term view.

Barbara Keeley: It is time to tackle unmet need, which is clear from my hon. Friends’ questions. Ministers say that they want to seek a consensus on the future of social care, but we already have a proposal with wide-ranging support, including from former Conservative Chancellors in the Lords, major national charities, and the official Opposition: free personal care funded from taxation. Will the Minister accept that the way to move things forward is for the Government to join the existing consensus on introducing free personal care?

Caroline Dinenage: The Prime Minister said that the Government will deliver on our promises. We will bring forward a plan for social care this year—

Barbara Keeley: When?

Caroline Dinenage: This year. However, there are complex questions to address. A Joint Committee of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee came up with an entirely different solution—a social insurance model—which shows why we want to build a consensus. Even the Liberal Democrats have said that they want to build cross-party consensus, but we know the hon. Lady’s view on cross-party consensus: her way or the high way.

Jeremy Hunt: Given that we will not end the annual cycle of winter crises until we fix the problems in adult social care, does the Minister agree that, however important the commitment that people will not have to sell their home, the absolute priority in any discussions with the Treasury must be to get more money to local authorities so that they can discharge their responsibilities to older and more vulnerable people?

Caroline Dinenage: My right hon. Friend did some incredible work in this area when he was Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. In fact, he presided over the Department being renamed to draw reference to the importance of social care. He is absolutely right that we must ensure that councils have the money they need for the short term, but we must also work towards a consensus so that everybody will have safety and security and that nobody will be forced to sell their home to pay for their care.

Philip Hollobone: I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council. Taking advantage of imminent local government   reorganisation in Northamptonshire, will the Minister continue to encourage local councils and the two local hospitals to bring forward innovative proposals under one budget for an integrated health and social care pilot in Northamptonshire?

Caroline Dinenage: My hon. Friend has already been a really good champion of collaborative health and social care work. He has made some excellent suggestions, and we have seen how things such as the better care fund, through which health and care pool their resources, can have a positive effect for local communities. I encourage his local area to look closely at how that sort of work can be maximised and moved forward.

Anne Marie Morris: As the Minister will know, the particular problem in rural areas is that need is not just unmet, but unseen. What steps has the Minister taken, or what does she have in mind, to fix the situation and find that need so that it can be met?

Caroline Dinenage: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to rural sparsity and the challenges facing rural communities. We are committed to undertake a review of relative needs and resources, and it will be a thorough evidence-based review of the costs facing all authorities, including how factors such as rurality, sparsity and other geographical features affect the cost of delivering services across the country and how to account for them in a robust manner.

David Simmonds: For the record, I declare my interest as the spouse of an NHS doctor. The Pinn Medical Centre in my constituency is due to close its walk-in service so that the Harrow CCG can save money, but the likely diversion of patients to local A&E services will end up costing the NHS more. Will the Minister join me in encouraging the CCG to consider the wider context of NHS budgets and to support the service while local NHS providers consider how to increase access to GP appointments in line with our manifesto commitments?

Caroline Dinenage: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of access to primary and community services within Pinner. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further, but we will support anything he is doing to assist his local services.

PrEP Commissioning

Peter Kyle: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on providing assistance to local authorities preparing for the routine commissioning of PrEP.

Jo Churchill: I have spoken to the relevant Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and my officials are working closely with other key stakeholders to ensure that we deliver routine commissioning of PrEP—pre-exposure prophylaxis—to help end new HIV transmissions. This is a key interest not only of many hon. Members but of many broader stakeholders, and I know the issue is particularly dear to the hon. Member’s heart.

Peter Kyle: I am grateful for the Minister’s response and for the Secretary of State’s announcement that he wants routine commissioning of PrEP by April, but what he and the Department have not done is spell out how they will achieve it. The PrEP trial will end this year, and we need a guarantee that every single person who needs and wants PrEP will get it from April.

Jo Churchill: I assure the hon. Gentleman that NHS England and NHS Improvement have already agreed to fund all the ongoing costs of the drugs for PrEP going forward. We will provide information on how the other elements of the programme will be funded and how commissioners will be supported. He is right that the trial ends in July, but routine commissioning will be rolled out from April—we will make sure they dovetail. It is hugely important that PrEP is available for each and every person who wishes to access it.

Sharon Hodgson: In October last year, the Government confirmed that the local authority public health grant will increase by 1% in real terms in 2020-21. However, this funding has not yet been allocated to local authorities. How will the Government financially support local authorities to establish the routine commissioning of PrEP by April?

Jo Churchill: As I said, NHS England and NHS Improvement have already agreed, within the ring-fenced funding for public health, to fund the ongoing costs of drugs for PrEP going forward. There will be an additional allocation of funds to cover the PrEP roll-out completely[Official Report, 3 February 2020, Vol. 671, c. 1MC.].

NHS: Take-up of New Technology

Daniel Kawczynski: What steps he is taking to ensure the take-up of new technology by the NHS to support effective delivery of its services.

Alan Mak: What steps he is taking to ensure the take-up of new technology by the NHS to support effective delivery of its services.

Matthew Hancock: Using the best technology is good for patients, clinicians and the NHS. Work is under way to drive through the use of new technology, including electronic referrals and electronic prescribing, and to end the painfully slow logins in some trusts.

Daniel Kawczynski: My right hon. Friend will know that the Future Fit programme, if passed, would have brought not only £312 million but a lot of innovative, pioneering technology into the county of Shropshire. Unfortunately, as he knows, the programme has been blocked thus far by the Labour-controlled, medically illiterate Telford and Wrekin Council. Does he agree that investing in technology would help patients and clinicians and would save money in the long term?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I do. It is striking how much clinicians working on the frontline are desperate  for improvements in the technology they use. Our announcement over Christmas that we will have a single  login, which is seemingly so simple, brought enormous enthusiasm from clinicians who spend hours of their week doing things that most of us can do with the click of a button on the systems we use.
My hon. Friend has been an assiduous campaigner for health investment in Shrewsbury, both physical capital investment and investment in modern technology.

Alan Mak: I welcome the phasing out of outdated technologies, such as fax machines, in the NHS. As the switch-off date approaches, what steps is NHS England taking to ensure that patient records can be transferred electronically between primary and secondary healthcare providers?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is spot on. We are driving interoperability so that the right people can see the right records at the right time. We will mandate that technology used in the NHS must allow for such interoperability, and we will set standards.
My hon. Friend started the “axe the fax” campaign, in which I was happy to play my part. Faxes are terrible for efficiency and for data security—even straightforward email is so much better—and we will drive up data security by axing the fax across the NHS.

Grahame Morris: What specific investment is being directed to supporting the 11 new radiotherapy IT networks that are required to provide a world-class radiotherapy service and improve cancer outcomes and survivability?

Matthew Hancock: Radiotherapy is a good example of part of the NHS that can benefit hugely from improved technology now and from the cutting-edge artificial intelligence-type technologies that are coming down the track. I am happy to look at any specific proposals the hon. Gentleman has. We have a broad programme to support the technology needed in radiotherapy.

Clive Betts: I am disappointed that the Secretary of State could not come to the opening last Friday of the Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre in my constituency, which is looking at linking research into the prevention and treatment of chronic diseases with physical activity, using new technologies including robots. I am pleased that he has contributed £14 million to this project. He has missed that opportunity, but may I invite him to come to the centre and to discuss how he can help to set up a centre for child health technology, again using innovative and technological solutions, towards which we will expect his contribution to be helpful?

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is a man after my own heart. I am sorry that I missed the ribbon cutting, as I love a good ribbon cutting, especially where the project sounds so brilliant and innovative, bringing different parts of the NHS together and helping clinicians in order to help patients. I am glad that he is as enthusiastic as I am about our £14 million investment.

Health and Social Care (Buckinghamshire)

Steven Baker: If his Department will fund the digital transformation of health and social care services in Buckinghamshire; and if he will make a statement.

Matthew Hancock: We are driving forward the technology agenda across the NHS, as we have just been discussing. Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust is one of the many trusts being considered for digital aspirant funding, which is the next generation of funding to bring hospital trusts into the 21st century.

Steven Baker: I am grateful for that, but will the Secretary of State support moving to devolved, multi-year and unified budgets, to enable the delivery of digital technology and, in particular, best value, against specific outcomes?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, my hon. Friend is spot on. We recognise the need for a multi-year capital settlement in the NHS to support exactly that sort of planning and to modernise, and the Treasury has confirmed that we will publish that settlement at the next capital review.

University Hospital of Hartlepool

Mike Hill: What discussions he has had with the Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees clinical commissioning group on the future of services at the University Hospital of Hartlepool.

Edward Argar: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions with the CCG on the future of services at the University Hospital of Hartlepool.

Mike Hill: Hartlepool’s hospital is vital to our community, but its future very much depends on consultancy-led services. What reassurances can the Minister give me that consultancy-led services will be returned to that hospital?

Edward Argar: I am conscious that both the energetic Mayor Ben Houchen and the hon. Member have campaigned on working to reinstate accident and emergency and maternity services at Hartlepool’s hospital. Although there are currently no plans that I am aware of to change the model of services, and reconfiguration matters are for the CCG, I am happy to meet him and the Mayor to discuss the hospital if that is useful.

Dehenna Davison: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: This is limited to Hartlepool, so I presume your question is around that.

Dehenna Davison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As another north-east MP concerned about local healthcare, I asked the Prime Minister two weeks ago about retention of the stroke service at Bishop Auckland Hospital. Has the Minister made any progress on that point?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend is already a doughty champion and spokesperson in this House for her constituents on health matters—indeed, she was just that in yesterday’s Second Reading debate on the NHS Funding Bill. I am pleased to inform her that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already met the chief executive of the NHS and the regional NHS director responsible and discussed this matter with them.

Life Expectancy

Kate Osborne: What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of life expectancy.

Ian Byrne: What recent assessment he has made of trends in the level of life expectancy.

Nadine Dorries: Although life expectancy at birth remains the highest it has been, we want everyone to have the same opportunity to have a long, healthy life, whoever they are, wherever they live and whatever their background. We are committed to giving everyone five extra years of healthy life by 2035, and to addressing the needs of areas with the poorest health.

Kate Osborne: Life expectancy advances depend on good local service provision. Does the Minister agree with me and the people of Jarrow that, following the devastating closure of St Clare’s Hospice, we should take all possible steps to ensure that palliative care provision is put in place urgently in Jarrow constituency? Will she meet me to discuss this important issue?

Nadine Dorries: I am unaware of the closure of that hospice, but my door is open to the hon. Lady. If she would like to see me at the back of the Speaker’s Chair after questions, we can arrange a suitable time to discuss the issue.

Ian Byrne: Today, a baby girl born in Liverpool can expect to live 13 fewer years in good health than a baby girl born in Richmond. A new study from University College London shows that being wealthy adds nine years to healthy life expectancy. Does the Minister agree that such health inequalities are an injustice in society that must urgently be addressed?

Nadine Dorries: The best way to improve life expectancy is to prevent health problems from arising in the first place. Prevention is one of the top five priorities for the health service, and we are taking action to help people live longer and healthier lives. The Government have a proven track record of reducing the harms caused by obesity, tobacco and other substances. That is where we need to focus our efforts to ensure that life expectancy rises in all areas throughout the country.

Barbara Keeley: The most shocking trend in life expectancy is that people with learning disabilities die so early—on average 25 years younger than the general population. We must see action to learn the lessons from each of those early deaths. The contract for the University of Bristol’s running of the learning disability mortality review ends in May, and there is now a growing backlog of cases, so will the Minister tell the House what the future of this important review is, and what staff resources are needed to continue the vital work of reviewing and reporting on early deaths?

Nadine Dorries: We will introduce mandatory training for all health and social care practitioners. I hope that that will address the particular problem that the hon.  Lady has brought up. It comes back to the substantial life expectancy issue, which is that regardless of the group, prevention is key.

Damian Green: In her initial response, the Minister rightly emphasised the importance of rising healthy life expectancy, as well as life expectancy more generally. Will she therefore join me in welcoming the forthcoming report from the all-party group on longevity—[Interruption.] If the Minister is listening, will she welcome the report, which will give the Government practical advice specifically on how to use prevention to raise the levels of healthy life expectancy?

Nadine Dorries: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. We want everyone to have the same opportunity to have a long and healthy life, whoever they are, wherever they are and whatever their background. We will certainly look at that report.

Paul Bristow: I welcome the fact that one theme underpinning the NHS long-term plan is prevention, to help enable people to live better lives for longer. Does my hon. Friend agree that supporting people to make healthier choices, combined with improved screening and diagnostic services, will help to increase life expectancy?

Nadine Dorries: I very much agree, and that is where the Government are directing their efforts. My hon. Friend mentioned screening; we have put extra resources into screening and scanners, including in Peterborough. We are absolutely attacking on screening programmes and on obesity and tobacco—all those issues that we know affect life expectancy and cause harms. The Government have made those issues their top priority.

Health Inequalities

Karl Turner: What steps he is taking to reduce health inequalities.

Jo Churchill: We are determined to address the long-standing inequalities that exist in many areas, be they in access, outcomes or people’s experience of their local health service. Our world-leading childhood obesity plan, NHS health checks, the tobacco control plan and the diabetes prevention programme all see us leading the way, but there is undoubtedly more targeted work to do on this complex issue, particularly in areas of high need.

Karl Turner: The recent mental health prevention Green Paper recognised the link between deprivation and poor mental health outcomes. Along with the proper funding of frontline and early intervention services, mental health inequality needs urgent action, so when will the Minister get to work to sort out this mess? People in east Hull desperately need access to services that are currently not available.

Jo Churchill: I agree with the hon. Member. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), who has responsibility for the mental health element of the portfolio, are working hand in  glove on this. Often, it is the dual toxicity of addiction—be it substance or alcohol abuse—and mental ill health that drives health inequalities. We are targeting the matter and working together on access to make sure that we drive down these health inequalities.

Tracey Crouch: Many people with severe conditions such as agoraphobia face inequalities in accessing life-saving services such as cervical smear tests. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that these services can be administered outside a clinical setting, thus reducing health inequalities for those who, for whatever reason, are housebound?

Jo Churchill: No woman should be denied access to vital screening. I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to a particular matter in her constituency where it has been very difficult for somebody to access screening. I am happy to meet her to see how we can work through this. We are actually working on a home kit for cervical screening, which should help in time, but nobody should be denied access. We are committed to improving access for all women, and I will be happy to meet her to see what we can do.

Primodos

Patricia Gibson: What recent representations he has received on people affected by the hormone pregnancy drug, Primodos.

Nadine Dorries: Ministers have not received any recent representations. However, as we know, Baroness Cumberlege is leading the independent medicines and medical devices safety review, which includes an examination of what happened in the case of Primodos. Her review has had lengthy engagements with people who have been affected.

Patricia Gibson: As the Minister is aware, the hormone pregnancy drug test Primodos was taken by around 1.5 million women in the ‘60s and ‘70s, leading to birth defects, miscarriage and stillbirth, and, 50 years on, those affected still wait for justice. The review into this scandal, announced in 2018, was very welcome, but can the Minister confirm that, if it is merited, she is open to establishing a comprehensive public inquiry following the publication of the review to ensure justice for those affected?

Nadine Dorries: Baroness Cumberlege’s review is examining what happened in the case of Primodos and will determine what further action is required. Ministers will consider any recommendations very carefully. We do not have a date for the publication of the review, but it will be very soon. Perhaps we can continue the conversation then.

Accident and Emergency Waiting Times

Toby Perkins: What recent assessment he has made of the reasons for the increase in A&E waiting times.

Imran Hussain: What recent assessment he has made of performance against waiting time targets for A&E services throughout England.

Edward Argar: Winter is the most challenging time of year for our NHS, when cold weather and an increase in flu cases place additional pressures on the service. As ever, the NHS staff have done an amazing job this winter, and the NHS has seen a significant increase in demand, with 1 million more patients attending A&E in 2019. The December figures, when compared with those in 2018, show a 6.5% increase on attendance at A&E.

Toby Perkins: I do not know whether the Minister is aware, but we have a winter every year. We have had one for the past 71 years, and yet these are the worst A&E waiting times in history, and they are the culmination of the policies that his party has followed for the past nine years: the cuts in social care, the number of GPs driven out of practices, and this Government’s failure on prevention. All of that has led us to the worst A&E waiting times in history, and the Minister’s answer does not start to look at the failure that he has delivered.

Edward Argar: Well, as I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman—he may not have heard this—demand in A&E has significantly increased this winter. He asks about GPs. I am sure he fully supports our clear commitment to 50 million more GP appointments and 6,000 more GPs. I am sure he also welcomes, in his own constituency, the £19 million investment by this Government in 2017 in a new urgent treatment centre, which will serve his constituents and is due to start work this summer.[Official Report, 29 January 2020, Vol. 670, c. 6MC.]

Imran Hussain: Between winter 2018 and winter 2019, the proportion of A&E attendances in Bradford that were seen within the four-hour target fell by seven percentage points, putting patients at risk and overstretching already pressured staff. In Health questions in October last year, I warned the Minister of these very real dangers, but he refused to meet me even to discuss the matter. Will he now answer the question as to why further funding was not made available to stop staff and patients at Bradford Royal Infirmary being put at risk?

Edward Argar: I remind the hon. Gentleman that Bradford treated more people in A&E this winter than in any previous one, and although he may have omitted to do so, I want to pay tribute to and thank the staff at Bradford for that work. The Conservative party is the party that is investing in our NHS, our A&Es and our staff, and the hon. Gentleman should welcome that.

Justin Madders: I think it is time that we shook this Government out of their complacency. On their watch, the four-hour A&E waiting target has never been met, and performance is getting worse each month. It is no wonder they are putting so much effort into getting rid of it. We agree with the president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, who said:
“Rather than focus on ways around the target, we need to get back to the business of delivering on it.”
Does the Minister agree?

Edward Argar: First, 1.7 million more people are being seen within the four-hour target now than before 2010. I hope that the shadow Minister will acknowledge  that that reflects the significant increase in demand due to the number of people going through the system. He talks about the review of standards. That is a clinically-led review, and I am sure he would want to let those clinicians lead it. We will see what it reports and will consider its recommendations when they come back to us. In the meantime, we are getting on with investing in our NHS, and improving services.

Topical Questions

Penny Mordaunt: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Matthew Hancock: As well as working to protect the public from infectious disease outbreaks, we are working to improve technology and recruit the workforce that the NHS needs. Figures just out show that we have record numbers of nurses working in our NHS—up by over 7,800 on the same time last year.

Penny Mordaunt: May I acknowledge the good work done by the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), resulting in a regional breakdown of the transforming care programme? It shows where progress is not being made, and that the target of 35% of in-patient beds being closed down will not be met by this March. How will the Secretary of State shut down these hell-holes, and will he hold to account commissioners who are still sending people with learning disabilities to them?

Matthew Hancock: I am really pleased that my right hon. Friend has driven forward, and is holding us—and, in turn, the NHS—to account for delivery of this vital agenda; it is incredibly important to get this right. The number of people with learning disabilities and/or autism who are in in-patient settings is falling, but not as fast as I would like. We have a clear commitment in the long-term plan to bring it down by half. As she says, there is a target to bring it down by the end of March. The Minister for Care has done a huge amount of work to drive this forward, and we will do everything we can to ensure that all these people, who are some of the most vulnerable in the country, get the best support they can in the right setting. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s scrutiny.

Daniel Zeichner: The West Suffolk Hospital has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. I guess all Members try to keep their fingers on the pulse of their local hospitals, but does not the fact that West Suffolk constituents are represented by both the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), show that something has gone fundamentally wrong in the scrutiny and oversight of our NHS? What has gone wrong, and what is the Minister going to do about it?

Edward Argar: I would not draw that conclusion about my right hon. and hon. Friends. What I would say, though, is that I want all staff to feel that they can speak up and have the confidence that anything they raise will be taken seriously. That is why I requested on 17 January that NHS England and NHS Improvement commission a rapid and  independent review into how the West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust has handled this issue. I will be happy to update Members, including the hon. Gentleman, when that review reports.

Holly Mumby-Croft: Last week, due to ongoing workforce challenges, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust temporarily transferred all oncology services to Grimsby’s hospital. This is not acceptable to local patients. Will the Secretary of State join me on a visit to Scunthorpe General Hospital so that we can discuss this and other issues with local NHS staff?

Edward Argar: I appreciate the concerns raised by my hon. Friend about that matter. I understand that the changes, which have been made for patient safety reasons, are temporary, with a review to follow led by the Humber, Coast and Vale cancer alliance. As we monitor the results of the review closely—I will continue to take a close interest in this matter—either I or my right hon. Friend will be happy to take up her invitation for a visit.

Ian Byrne: In my constituency, year-on-year reductions in funding of both adult and young people’s mental healthcare mean that some of our most vulnerable citizens are falling through the net. Can the Government guarantee that adequate funding will be made available to tackle the mental health crisis now?

Matthew Hancock: There have been year-on-year increases in funding for mental health services, but there is also an increase in demand. The long-term plan has the largest increase reserved for mental health services, because we want to see mental health and physical health treated on a par.

Jack Brereton: Labour’s private finance initiative contract means that Royal Stoke University Hospital is paying double the interest on its debt than if it had been funded directly from the Treasury—money that should be going to improve patient care. Will my hon. Friend agree to look at how these costs can be mitigated?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, along with my other hon. Friends who represent Stoke, has raised this issue in the past; they are right to highlight it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Labour’s PFI deal has left the trust burdened with debt. My Department’s PFI centre of best practice supports trusts in ensuring best value, and I will happily ask it to work with him. Yesterday I also committed to meet him and my other hon. Friends to discuss this matter.

Rosena Allin-Khan: Throughout the election there were empty promises from the Conservatives, and one of those promises was to tackle the social care system—but there is still no Green Paper. There are dementia patients who are trapped in hospital due to an inadequate social care system, and yet this Government still do nothing. How many more families have to suffer before this Government act?

Matthew Hancock: The Government will deliver on all of our manifesto commitments.

Bill Esterson: In Maghull, Formby and Crosby in my constituency, the health facilities are simply not fit for purpose. Significant house building will only make matters worse and make it that much harder for the Secretary of State to deliver on the promises he set out earlier in today’s Question Time. Will he meet me to discuss how to get the funding so that we have the state-of-the-art, high-quality facilities that my constituents and medical staff need?

Matthew Hancock: I spent much of the latter part of last year travelling around the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world and meeting then candidates. I am very happy to meet him to see how we can use the record levels of capital investment in our NHS—the record levels of funding that he should support—to support his constituents as well as everybody else’s.

Robert Largan: Tameside Hospital A&E has seen a huge increase in patient numbers, often leading to overcrowding, with patients being assessed and treated in unsuitable areas. The Government have rightly responded by committing to building a new urgent care centre for Tameside. Will the Secretary of State update the House on when construction is due to begin?

Matthew Hancock: We want to begin construction urgently. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in promoting and supporting this project, which he has raised with me a number of times. I look forward to meeting him in the next week or so to go through the details of when we can see it open.

Antony Higginbotham: My right hon. Friend will know that the A&E services at Burnley General Hospital were closed in 2007 by the then Labour Administration. Given our record investment in the NHS, and the pressures on the A&E, will he agree to meet me to talk through the future of the hospital and the services we can provide locally?

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend, like his colleagues, has already proved himself to be a doughty champion for his constituency. The urgent care centre at Burnley General Hospital will continue to play an important role in meeting urgent care needs locally, but he is right to highlight the broader importance of Burnley as part of the health ecosystem in his area. I would be delighted to meet him.

Meg Hillier: There are real concerns in east London about the big delays in the breast cancer screening programme, meaning that many women are not getting their first screening until close to their 53rd birthday. Will the Minister meet me and other concerned east London MPs to ensure that we tackle that, to the benefit of our constituents?

Jo Churchill: I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and other east London MPs. Mike Richards has done a review of screening, and we need to level up and ensure that everybody can access screening.

James Davies: In December, more than 2,200 patients waited in excess of 12 hours in A&E departments in north Wales. What is the Secretary of State’s response to the Welsh Government, who have managed the health board in special measures for nearly five years? [R]

Matthew Hancock: I worry about the delivery of health services to people in Wales. Although this issue is devolved, I am the UK Health Minister, and my hon. Friend is right to raise that issue for his constituents. The number of people waiting more than one year in Wales is over 4,000. In England, despite the much larger population, it is only just over 1,000. The Welsh NHS, frankly, is an advert for why people should not want the Labour party running the NHS.

Munira Wilson: A number of women in my constituency have recently been in touch who are going through the menopause and struggling to access hormone replacement therapy, which they really need. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of current supplies of HRT, and what is he doing to address the shortages?

Matthew Hancock: That is obviously an incredibly important issue. The shortages come from problems with factories outside the UK. We have been working hard on it through the autumn. I am advised that the shortages are starting to be mitigated and that production is back up and running, but we keep a close eye on it, because I understand how important it is.

David Simmonds: Will my hon. Friend commit to working with me to secure the long-term future of hospice services in any reorganisation of the Mount Vernon Hospital site in my constituency?

Caroline Dinenage: We are very committed to hospice services, which is why an additional £25 million went into hospices last year. I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the hospices in his area.

Alex Norris: Cuts to local government budgets have led to cuts to public health budgets, which have led to cuts to preventive services, which have led to greater demand in A&E and social care. It is bad for individuals, and it is terrible for the health and social care system, yet this weekend, we saw media reports that there are more cuts coming to local government, especially in the poorest communities. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will tell colleagues in the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that those cuts cannot take place?

Matthew Hancock: I do not need to, because we are clear that there is an increase in the spending power of local authorities and in the public health grant.

Stephen Crabb: Last week was Cervical Cancer Prevention Week. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the work of my constituent Maria Dullaghan and the charity Jo’s   Cervical Cancer Trust, which campaigns to raise awareness? Will she underline the Government’s support for Sir Mike Richards’s review of the adult screening programme?

Jo Churchill: I am delighted to join my right hon. Friend in congratulating Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust on the work it does. I had the pleasure of meeting its team only last week, who do fantastic work to raise awareness of vital cervical screening. He is right about Mike Richards’s review. We must ensure that we screen all the available population in order to see cervical cancer eliminated for good, which would be brilliant. I am delighted to support this year’s “Smear for smear” campaign. There is nothing shameful about human papillomavirus, and we must bust the myths, because being tested can save someone’s life.

Rosie Duffield: Following the desperately upsetting news headlines last week about preventable baby deaths at East Kent, including that of Harry Richford, aged just seven days old, whose death was described by the coroner as “wholly avoidable”, will the Secretary of State join me and Harry’s family in calling for a full, transparent public inquiry?

Nadine Dorries: I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), who made an excellent speech last night about this very issue at East Kent. I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that the Care Quality Commission conducted a further investigation of the whole trust last week and will take enforcement action if necessary. On Monday, I asked it to provide a summary report within 14 days. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch has examined 26 individual maternity cases at the trust, and it has already reported on 15. It was also asked on Monday to complete its work within 14 days and to send in a summary report to give us further information.

Greg Hands: The Secretary of State will know that my local Labour party has been running an outrageous campaign saying that the Parsons Green walk-in centre is set to close. The clinical commissioning group has confirmed that that is not the case, and the facility is both busy and popular. Will he   join me in condemning this latest scare tactic from my local Labour party about local NHS facilities that are both popular and well used?

Matthew Hancock: That is absolutely right. Last year, my right hon. Friend campaigned for and secured the long-term future of the Parsons Green walk-in centre. That announcement was made, and then the scaremongering carried on, supported by the local Labour party and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who is a disgrace in the way he campaigns because it worries vulnerable people who think that things are going to close. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and send a message to people far and wide in Parsons Green that their walk-in centre is staying open.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure the Secretary of State would acknowledge that I am trying to get the last few questions in, and I think we can speed up rather than trying to make any last final points.

Stephanie Peacock: May I ask the Secretary of State what screening plans are in place for those arriving in the UK from China, and has a contingency fund been established to tackle the potential effects of the coronavirus?

Matthew Hancock: Of course, it is incredibly important that we have appropriate measures in place for those who return from China—not only those returning from outside Wuhan, but those returning from Wuhan should they do so. Those are being put in place, and of course we are making budgets available to ensure that all support necessary is given.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Unfortunately, that is the end of questions. I hope that we will get in a few more next time.
The House will wish to be aware that there will be a statement today after the conclusion of proceedings on the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill. I cannot confirm a time exactly, but it should be before 3.30 pm, and the start of proceedings on the Third Reading of the Bill will serve to give some notice of the likely start time. I hope that is helpful to Members.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Considered in Committee
[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

Clause 1

Incorporation of EU legislation governing the CAP direct payment schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 9 stand part.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 8, in schedule 2, page 12, line 11, leave out “3(1)(a) or”.
This amendment together with Amendment 9 would make regulations under Clause 3(1)(a) subject to affirmative resolution procedure rather than the made affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment 9, page 12, line 13, leave out “3(1)(b), 3(b) or (4)” and insert
“3(1)(a), (1)(b), (3)(b), (4) or 6(1)”.
This amendment is linked to Amendments 8 and 10.
Amendment 10, page 12, line 16, leave out paragraph 3.
This amendment together with Amendment 9 would make regulations under Clause 6(1) subject to affirmative resolution procedure rather than negative resolution procedure.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

George Eustice: Clause 1 provides the legal basis for the Government and devolved Administrations to make payments to farmers under the direct payment scheme for 2020. The clause is needed because article 37 of the withdrawal agreement means that the EU legislation governing the 2020 common agricultural policy schemes will no longer apply in the UK on exit day. This was fully intended; it is part of extracting the United Kingdom from the European Union’s next multi-annual budget cycle, which starts in 2021, and it allows us to take back control of agriculture policy and domestic agricultural funding.
The Bill is needed because of a quirk in the way that the EU common agricultural policy is funded. Pillar one payments—the so-called basic payment scheme payments —are funded from the following year’s budget, unlike pillar two payments for things such as countryside stewardship, which are funded from the budget year in which they apply.

Desmond Swayne: Does clause 1(3) include the higher level stewardship regime, or is that part of a separate settlement?

George Eustice: It includes the basic payment scheme. Only direct payments are in the Bill’s scope, and that includes the annual area payments that most farmers would receive.
As we are not contributing to the next multi-annual financial framework, we have decided that we should fund this year ourselves to provide farmers with continuity. The withdrawal agreement therefore disapplied the direct payment scheme to the UK. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 applies that agreement, and disapplies the direct payment scheme, so to pay farmers for this year, we have to provide this regulation.

Vicky Ford: Chelmsford is largely an urban constituency, but when I visited one of my local farms just before Christmas, it was devastating to see that, because of the wet weather, people there had not been able to plant any of their winter wheat. They are doing some fantastic work with new crops such as millet, so that we do not need to import that. Will the Bill help to give farmers across Essex and the east of England the certainty they need at this challenging time?

George Eustice: The Bill will absolutely give them that certainty. The Bill is essential if we are to give farmers their direct payments—those area-based payments—in December. If this direct payment regulation did not come into UK law, we would be unable to do that.

John Redwood: Will the Minister confirm that as we move on to the new policy, there will be an emphasis on growing more food at home for import substitution, so that these general moneys can lead on to moneys that help us to build a bigger domestic food industry?

George Eustice: My right hon. Friend will be aware that we have presented a separate Agriculture Bill, which has had its First Reading. It sets out all the powers we would need to reform agriculture policy. The direct payment regulations before us bring the CAP into UK law and on to the UK statute book, and in the Agriculture Bill, there are powers to modify these regulations, so that we can remove the rough edges and simplify them. There are also powers in the Agriculture Bill to strike a very different course for our agriculture—a course based on payment for public goods, but also on providing farmers with grants to invest in new technology, so that they can improve their profitability or add value to their produce. That Bill also recognises that our food security is vital, and commits the Government to reviewing it every five years. That, however, is obviously a matter that we will debate in the coming weeks and months; I want to return to this direct payments Bill.

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) mentioned the need for certainty in her arable sector. We have a strong arable sector in North Dorset. Does the Minister agree that the certainty that this Bill provides to our farmers is of particular importance to those involved in the dairy and beef sectors, both of which are incredibly strong in North Dorset?

George Eustice: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill will give certainty and clarity about this year to all farmers who currently make a BPS claim and have done for some years. That will include, of course, dairy farmers and beef farmers. Beef farmers in particular have been through a rather difficult year, in which beef prices have been suppressed, and the knowledge and  clarity that there will absolutely be continuity this year, and that payments will be made, will be very welcome to them.

Tim Farron: The Minister’s own Department’s figures recognise that 85% of livestock farm income comes through basic payments. Of course, this 12-month stay of execution will be welcomed by many of my farmers, but from next January, he is planning to phase out BPS, and the danger is that there will be no certainty about its replacement before 2028. Does he not worry that we will lose many livestock farmers during that seven-year transition, and does he agree that he should therefore delay the phasing out of BPS?

George Eustice: It is important to recognise that a significant proportion of sheep farmers in particular do not receive the basic payment scheme area payment, because they are on contract farm agreements and the landlord receives that money. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I think the principle of investing in public goods has support across the House, but we need to strike this new course sensitively and ensure that agriculture remains profitable. We want a vibrant and profitable agriculture industry, which is why the Agriculture Bill also makes provision for payments to improve productivity, and sets a quite long transition period of seven years, so that we can gradually phase out the old legacy scheme. He will be reassured to hear that the Bill before us makes no changes at all for the coming year. Farmers in his constituency can rest assured that once this Bill is passed, the direct payment scheme will operate this year in exactly the same way as it has in previous years.

Ben Everitt: Does the Minister agree that there is a balance to be struck between incentivising productivity and rewarding farmers for their role in looking after our countryside—the hedges, copses and spinneys that make England, and indeed Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, so unique in their character, and so different from some intensive agricultural operations in European and beyond? If we are to remain competitive and our land is to remain productive and profitable, we need to find a system that balances those priorities, protecting what we love about our countryside, while recognising the wonderful contribution our farmers make to our agricultural economy.

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is all about striking the right balance. The premise behind the direction of agriculture policy is this: rather than trying to put on a sticking-plaster, and masking poor profitability in agriculture, we ought to have a coherent policy that rewards farmers properly for their work to improve the environment, create new habitats and so on, and that makes them able to become more profitable by investing in new equipment, adding value to their product and improving transparency in the supply chain. That is our approach—tackling the causes of poor profitability, not masking them with an arbitrary area-based subsidy.

Simon Hoare: My hon. Friend is being characteristically generous in giving way. I hope he will agree with me, and probably most people in this House, that as important  as this Bill is—so, too, is the Agriculture Bill, to which he referred—it will be for nothing if we do not have some form of equivalence clause on food imports to ensure standards of animal welfare and public health. All of the Minister’s good intentions, both for this Bill and the Agriculture Bill, will come to nothing if we suddenly find ourselves swamped by cheaper imports that make all the countryside issues to which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) referred absolutely irrelevant.

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, that is not a matter for this Bill, but our party’s manifesto makes a clear commitment to our maintaining standards as we approach new trade deals, and to our ensuring that we do not water down our standards or undermine our producers.

Neil Parish: The Minister says that there will be complete continuity of the basic farm payment over the coming year. Does that include continuity of the three crop rule and all the regulation that goes with the present system? Farmers will need to know that. They have got used to the system, and so has the Rural Payments Agency, so we need to know whether the system will be exactly the same, or whether there will be some changes.

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will come on to that when I describe some of the regulations that will be brought across by the Bill. The system will be exactly the same, including the so-called three crop, or crop diversification, rule, the requirement for environmental focus areas, all the scheme deadlines for getting forms in, and the penalty matrix. I am not a huge fan of many of those things, and have been critical of them in the past, but we have taken a decision that charting a different course is a matter for the Agriculture Bill. This is a short Bill that is about providing farmers with immediate continuity and legal certainty that they will get their payment in exactly the way they used to—for this year only; then we will set out a different approach and a different course.

John Redwood: Can the Minister remind the House how, in the implementation period, we will avoid having to pay twice—both sending money to Brussels and paying direct?

George Eustice: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, under the financial settlement in the withdrawal agreement, we did not make a contribution to the next multi-annual financial framework, so the UK will not contribute to the EU budget from 2021 onwards, and will therefore not contribute to the budget that would fund this current year of BPS. We will fund it domestically, and that is why the direct payments regulation must be brought on to a UK regulatory footing.

Neil Parish: There is an argument that for many years the UK has actually contributed much more to the common agricultural policy than we have received from it. Can the Minister assure me that as we will not make those payments, we should save some money for the Exchequer?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend will remember the debate that took place in 2016. The UK has typically received back roughly half of what it put into the EU budget, and our contribution to the common agricultural policy on average has been double what we have received from it, historically.

James Cartlidge: Further to the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), and so that I understand this point, am I right that in this transition year we effectively pay as if we were members, but we are also funding domestically this farming payment under the Bill? Is it netted off, or are we in effect paying more for this year overall? Does that make sense?

George Eustice: It is complicated—as ever—with the common agricultural policy, but I tried to explain this point in my opening remarks. It is a quirk of the way that the EU budget works that the EU borrows the money for the pillar one payment—the BPS and area payments—from next year. Because the payments are made typically from December onwards, the money comes out of the 2021 budget. The pillar two payments come out of the 2020 budget—the year in which the money is spent. Put simply, we have not contributed to the 2020 capped budget because it is borrowed from 2021. I know that is complicated, but in essence we are not paying twice.

Fay Alicia Jones: Am I right in saying that the Welsh Government take 15% of the direct payment away from farmers and transfer it into pillar two, and that that is the most that any Government across the European Union can take?

George Eustice: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Under the common agricultural policy, there is provision for something called modulation, under which member states are able to transfer a chunk of money from pillar one to pillar two. Wales transfers 15%, or modulates by 15%, from pillar one to the pillar two budget. England modulates at the rate of 12.5%, and Scotland and Northern Ireland modulate considerably less, but still a little bit. There is a provision for that, and the Bill brings that regulation into UK statute.
Without clause 1, neither the Government nor the devolved Administrations would be able to continue to operate the 2020 direct payment schemes, and that would severely affect the agricultural industry, threatening the financial viability of agricultural producers who have planned on the basis of continuity of payments for this year. The direct payments basic legislation, and the implementing and delegated legislation, will become domestic law on exit day, as opposed to at the end of the implementation.

Siobhan Baillie: Climate change is a threat that we must all take action to tackle, and my constituents and farmers care deeply about it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Agriculture Bill and these changes will provide us with a great opportunity to encourage greener practices in the world of agriculture?

George Eustice: Yes—my hon. Friend makes a very important point. As we chart a new course on agriculture policy, one key objective set out in the Agriculture Bill,  which was recently published, was on climate change. It is absolutely the case that we should support farmers to farm more sustainably and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and that will be a matter for future policy. This Bill does not envisage radical change compared with what has gone before. Some provisions—the so-called “greening provisions” that are brought across by the Bill—will potentially have a modest impact on our carbon emissions and climate change, but addressing that issue properly will be a matter for future policy.
Clause 1(3) sets out the regulations that are covered. That includes the direct payments regulation, apart from article 13. Article 13 of the direct payments regulation is still there in retained EU law, because the withdrawal agreement Bill brought that element of the regulation across, so we do not need to do that a second time. We need that state aid provision because the withdrawal agreement committed us to an equivalent approach to the EU for this year. There is also the Commission delegated regulation (EU) No. 639/2014, which supplements the direct payments regulation, and Commission implementing regulation (EU) No. 641/2014, which lays down rules for the application of the direct payments regulations.

Joy Morrissey: In Beaconsfield, we are still very keen to receive these payments, and the Minister is right to bring forward the Bill. Many of my farmers would like to produce more, but that is currently restricted under the CAP. Does the Bill deal with that? For example, I have a chicken farmer who would like to increase the number of chickens and eggs that they produce, but there are restrictions because of the common agricultural policy payments. Is there anything in the Bill that will allow them to increase productivity as we move out of the EU?

George Eustice: If my hon. Friend writes to me on the specific issues for the chicken producer that she mentions, I am happy to look at that. As a general rule, poultry producers tend not to qualify for the basic payments scheme, because it is area-based. Of course, it could be a mixed enterprise, where the producer has a poultry unit and some land on which they claim BPS. There are also some domestic environmental regulations and a licensing scheme that the Environment Agency runs that would affect certain establishments in the poultry sector.
The Bill brings across existing legislation exactly as it is and does not envisage any change. The only change might come from the absence of EU auditors, as this is no longer an EU budget. Therefore the absence of the risk aversion that is a feature of Whitehall—where we have perpetual legal jeopardy and the constant threat of infraction, of disallowance risks and of arbitrary fines slapped on by EU auditors—means that we may be able to have a margin of appreciation in how we interpret some of these regulations, so that we can, for instance, send farmers a warning letter, rather than stinging them with a fine as we are required to under EU law.

Alex Chalk: It is very welcome to us in Cheltenham that in future the Government plan to use state support to promote biodiversity on farms to a far greater extent than is permissible under the CAP. However, will the Minister indicate how we can expect our landscape to change as a result of these very welcome policy changes?

George Eustice: The Agriculture Bill, which is a matter for future discussion, envisages in clause 1 that we would support, for instance, measures to reduce climate change and carbon emissions and measures on carbon sequestration. We have a commitment to establish additional new woodland areas. In some areas, I suspect that there would be some land-use change. We also want to use our future policy to support a more sustainable approach to farming, for instance getting more farmers involved in catchment-sensitive farming schemes, integrated pest management, better soil husbandry and better stewardship of our hedgerows. All these issues will have an impact on our environment and its biodiversity.

Simon Hoare: The Minister talked about having a lighter touch, in terms of moving to a warning letter rather than having fines, and many farmers will breathe a huge sigh of relief at that. What scope does he see in the Bill to build on the trend of performance improvement, which we have started to see from the RPA but where there is still headroom for further improvements, therefore hopefully further de-stressing the art of agriculture in this country?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which links to something I said earlier about the removal of the perpetual legal jeopardy that Whitehall has been subjected to while we have been an EU member. The issue, particularly in the CAP, is that there is a system of fines relating to what is called disallowance risk. The UK typically pays around £100 million a year in disallowance risk fines, often for very trivial errors such as a supposed lack of accuracy on maps, with a requirement that we map fields to four decimal points of accuracy, and issues about how things are recorded—even though they may be recorded, it may not be in the form that the EU auditors require. Some EU audits retro- spectively make things up, so we never know how an auditor will interpret the regulations in front of us. That means that officials who work very hard in DEFRA to make sense of these complex regulations will often take a view, have legal advice and interpret a regulation in a particular way. Subsequently, auditors will come along with a different view and that creates a disallowance risk. It is a very difficult situation to have a constant sense of legal jeopardy, which leads to risk aversion and people being very cautious and sometimes quite draconian in how they deal with farmers. That has been a constant problem with the existing scheme.

Simon Hoare: As a former Parliamentary Private Secretary to my hon. Friend, I am pretty forensic on these matters, as he will know—I am grateful to him for his indulgence. What plans do he and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have for communicating, monitoring and embedding the change of culture in the RPA? I do not say this to be rude to the RPA, but it will have been trained in a certain way of doing things and, rather like people who have been held prisoners for 40 years, will have no idea how to deal with its freedom once it is released. How will he ensure that the lighter touch that is now available as a result of the domestic legislation is communicated to all levels of the RPA so that as soon as possible, from day one, farmers will feel the benefit? A legislative change, if not implemented by the practitioners, is no change at all.

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes an important point. All of us—officials in Whitehall, Members of this House, and indeed, generally as a country—have to get used to our freedom and to enjoying it, and develop the confidence to exercise judgment in all fields as we leave the European Union and become a genuinely self-governing country again, which is what we will do.
I have already had a meeting with the chief executive of the RPA. It has made considerable progress over the past 18 months in improving its performance, but I have tasked him with looking at any changes in process—anything that could be adapted, removed or changed—that would make the application of the scheme easier once we have removed the constant threat and legal jeopardy caused by EU auditors, so we are doing a piece of work on this.

John Redwood: I just want to say well done to the Minister. It is really uplifting that there is something positive and that we can save some money.

George Eustice: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment. He and I have taken a similar view of pan-European legislation for some time, and obviously there will be many opportunities as we leave.

Richard Holden: Many upland sheep farmers, particularly in my constituency, will welcome not only the extra year of payments and the confidence it will give them, but the less draconian approach that the Government seem intent on taking. With the Agriculture Bill coming, can the Minister further reassure farmers in my constituency that there will be a phased approach so that they have time to get used to the new measures?

George Eustice: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very important point. Today’s Bill today simply brings across the existing schemes, including, as I have pointed out, all the so-called greening rules, all the cross-compliance rules, and so on. There is a small margin of appreciation that we can apply to interpret these sensibly and proportionately, which we have not been free to do to date. That said, we recognise the importance of a gradual transition to our new agriculture policy, which is why that policy envisages a seven-year transition, with a gradual phasing out of the BPS and with support to ensure that farmers have a prosperous and profitable future.

Alexander Stafford: Now we are getting rid of the cosh of legal threat hanging over our hard-working farming community, including in Rother Valley, can we use this as an opportunity to help, educate and upskill our farming community on the importance of biodiversity and so increase the flora and fauna in our beautiful areas? The farming community in Rother Valley already knows this, but what other support can the Government provide to encourage these things?

George Eustice: There are several important schemes, such as the Government-funded Farm Advisory Service and the various wildlife campaigns that also support farmers to farm in a more environmentally sensitive way. The future agriculture policy envisages that we will  provide advice and support to farmers—direct on-farm advice—about what might work on their particular holding, with their particular soil, landscape and topography. It is an exciting future, and having the right technical advice will be an important part of it, so my hon. Friend makes a good point.

Pete Wishart: The Minister will have seen the Scottish Affairs Committee report on agriculture in Scotland. It recommends that in considering the funding envelope across the UK he support less-favoured areas and that the funding follow the quality of the land. He was not particularly enthusiastic about that suggestion. I wonder if he has changed his mind. If not, on what central tenet does he see the distribution of funding across the UK being based?

George Eustice: Obviously we will work with the devolved Administrations on future funding. The Bill—in later clauses, so I will not dwell on it now—deals with recommendations for the allocation of funding this year, pertinent to the conclusions of the Bew review, which I will come on to. More generally, future policy envisages payment for public goods, but it also envisages a long transition towards that. We have given a commitment to keep the agriculture budget the same at least for this Parliament. [Interruption.] Within the UK, yes, there will be some discussions on allocation, but every component of the UK is likely to adopt a transition period during which they would want to keep, at least for a time, something akin to the current system as they move to a new one. That said, the funding settlement is for a future day and discussion, not for the Bill today, which covers this year only.

Neil Hudson: The Minister talked about public goods. As a veterinary surgeon, I am proud to say that in Penrith and The Border, in Cumbria and across the UK we have the highest standards of animal welfare and farming. Does he agree we need to articulate the fact that those standards will not be watered down and that these Bills are an opportunity for the UK to become a beacon for the rest of the world and that we will be able to raise animal welfare standards in our future trading partners?

George Eustice: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I have said, we have a manifesto commitment to protect animal welfare and food standards in future trade deals. Moreover, future policy envisages our being able to make payments to farmers—for instance, those who enter into a high welfare or high animal health scheme. We have an exciting opportunity to support high health and welfare schemes that could, for instance, reduce our reliance on antibiotics, which has been identified as a clear public good for future policy.
I will return to clause 1, as I realise there have been many interventions, which I have taken because clause 1 contains the meat of the Bill in that it brings across all the regulations.

Eleanor Laing: Order. For the sake of clarity and because new Members are present who might be concerned about sticking to the rules, I should explain that in addressing clause 1 the Minister is perfectly in order and absolutely right to address all the other aspects of the Bill because we have  grouped all the clauses and amendments together, and any Member may at this point refer to any aspect of the Bill they wish to raise.

George Eustice: Thank you, Dame Eleanor.
The Bill also covers the horizontal regulation, which governs the way paying agencies should operate; Commission delegated regulation 907/2014, which supplements the horizontal regulation with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, securities and use of the euro; Commission implementing regulation (EU) 908/2014, which lays down the rules for the application of the horizontal regulation with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, rules on checks, and securities and transparency; Commission implementing regulation 809/2014, which lays down rules for the application of the horizontal regulation with regard to the integrated administration and control system—the so-called IAC system—rural development measures and cross-compliance; and Commission delegated regulation 640/2014, which also supplements the horizontal regulation with regard to the IAC system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross-compliance.

Duncan Charles Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that these proposals show how the Government are leading the fight on climate change while also protecting our precious farming community? Not only will this Bill safeguard our payments for the next year, but the whole thrust of the Agriculture Bill is to allow our farmers to farm in a sustainable, environmentally friendly way that rewards them for protecting and helping our environment, which has to be applauded.

George Eustice: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very important point, and that is why we have set a very different course with our future agriculture policy, though it is based on payment for public goods. It is important that we support our farmers and properly reward them for the work they do for the environment.

James Cartlidge: Farming in South Suffolk is fairly horizontal—fairly flat—so I welcome these regulations. On a key technical question, under all those regulations the top level of payment awarded at EU level is in euros, whereas, of course, the allocation for the payment in UK law is in pounds sterling. Is there therefore any currency risk through the year to the payments that will ultimately be received by our farmers?

George Eustice: There is no currency risk for British farmers in this year, because the total size of the budget has already been set by the Treasury, and it has been set at the same level as last year. Under the regulations, we have to go through the formal process of setting the exact payment rate, but, because the budget has been guaranteed and it has been guaranteed that the payment system will be the same, farmers have a high degree of confidence that—barring any minuscule changes—their payment will be the same as it was last year.
My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important problem with the common agricultural policy. It introduced an entirely unnecessary exchange rate risk for our farmers,  in that money was sent to the European Union in pounds and was then denominated in sterling at a fixed point in time, typically in September each year. That meant that if the pound had had a good year and had rallied against the euro, farmers found that their payment would be lower, whereas sometimes when the pound fell, as it did after the 2016 referendum, they had an early Brexit dividend and received a higher payment than they might otherwise have expected. That unnecessary exchange rate risk has now gone, and the budget is set for this year.
I do not want to bore people too much with these regulations. I have listed them all in detail, and there is a reason for that. In the European Union, particularly in the context of the CAP, there are three types of regulations. There are the basic regulations, which the Council of Ministers has quite a bit of involvement in shaping, and on which, through working groups, the member states have a vote. There are delegated Acts or regulations, in which there is far less involvement for the member states. They collectively have a kind of veto power, but have less of an amending role. Then there are the implementing Acts or regulations, which the Commission pretty much just makes up without any particular involvement of the member states.
That said, I am conscious that Members will never have debated any of these regulations. Ministers will have been aware of debates and discussions taking place in working groups as the basic regulation was formed, and they will have received submissions letting them know that something alarming had been handed down in an implementing Act and we could not do anything about it. Obviously, as we make regulations in future, the scrutiny of the House will be brought to bear, and Members will be able to engage in and scrutinise every bit of the detail of future agricultural policy.
The regulations that I read out earlier may have seemed like a list of rather meaningless numbers, but I can tell Members who are interested in what they mean collectively, in terms of what the farmer is required to do, that basic payment scheme rules are published annually by the Rural Payments Agency. Let me give Members a flavour of those.
The publication “Basic Payment Scheme: rules for 2019” sets out the key dates during that scheme year to which farmers must have regard. It includes, for instance—and all this is born out of the regulations that are being brought across today—the setting of 1 January as the official start of the year. The period between 1 January to 30 June is regarded as the
“EFA period for EFA fallow land” .
That is the period during which land must be fallow if farmers want to claim it. On 13 March, the “window opens”, and farmers can start sending in their applications. Between 1 May and 30 June, the so-called three crop rule kicks in, along with the
“EFA period for nitrogen-fixing crops”.
During that period, farmers must demonstrate that in that window and that window only, they have three crops on their farms. Another rule states that one of those crops can be fallow land, but the qualifying period for that type of fallow land is different from the one for the type that is covered by the EFA period.
There is a deadline of 15 May for farmers to submit their BPS application forms. They are then given a couple of weeks’ grace during which they can make changes, and they have until 31 May to do that. There is then a “late application” deadline, which means that farmers are effectively given 21 days to submit late applications, but will lose, typically, 1% of their payment for each late application day.

Siobhan Baillie: Will my hon. Friend tell us a little more about the legal provisions enabling amendments and corrections to be made after we have left the EU, and how it can be ensured that the Bill is operable and can continue to be implemented?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend has made an important point. Let me say two things. First, clause 3, which I was going to come on to—I understood that you wanted me to address all the clauses simultaneously, Madam Deputy Speaker—deals with that issue in respect of the claim year 2020, in that it gives us powers akin to those that were in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make particular modifications and changes, simply to make this body of law operable. For instance, it enables us to replace the words “European Commission” with the words “UK Minister”, or, indeed, “devolved Administration Minister”, and it gives us the power to introduce subsequent statutory instruments to make the legislation operable.
Secondly and more broadly, for the purpose of future policy, the Agriculture Bill includes a power to modify policy. This Bill does not modify policy, but it gives us the power to make operable changes akin to those in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.

Ben Everitt: I think it important to learn the lessons of our involvement in the common agricultural policy over the years, and to consider some of the things that have gone wrong with it. In the context of implementing future changes in regulation, we should recognise that, for example, the set-aside rule—which those of us who were in farming in those days know and love—would sometimes represent the difference between profit and loss for a farm. To put it bluntly, the difference between the farm being viable and not viable was what the EU paid farmers not to grow anything. How can we incorporate that balance between productivity in our land and a viable economic agricultural and rural sector in our future legislation? I am heartened to hear that we are keeping that option in this Bill.

George Eustice: I agree that we must learn the lessons of the common agricultural policy. Having dealt with it for some seven years in total, I know that it is something of a bureaucratic quagmire. It is very difficult to navigate, and we tend to find that the more rules we invent, the more rules we need in order to make sense of the ones that we already have. That is why we end up with all sorts of complexity, as set out in the 127-page document containing guidance and rules for farmers.
The real lesson to be learnt is that whatever we do in future should be less rules-based and more based on delivering outcomes, and should also be tailored to the needs of an individual farm. When farms have poor profitability, we should try to tackle the causes of that  poor profitability by helping farmers to invest and improve fairness in the supply chain, rather than by means of an arbitrary area-based payment. That is the direction of travel that we have set out.

Victoria Prentis: Does my hon. Friend agree that those like me who have smallholdings are often overwhelmed by the body of rules, and end up not claiming money that they should rightly claim? Has that been a problem historically, and are there any records that show how many people are covered by this?

George Eustice: Every month I have to deal with appeals lodged by farmers following decisions made against them involving, for instance, penalties or disqualifications for their particular claim year, perhaps because they were late in submitting their claim. There is often a tragedy behind those stories, and the scope for a Minister to address that within the boundaries of EU law is often quite limited, but we will have the chance to address it in the future.

Jonathan Edwards: I do not think that anyone will disagree with the Minister about the need to get rid of overt bureaucracy, but on Friday I attended a farmers’ breakfast with representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales, and I know that my local farmers fear that they will lose access to their biggest export markets. Over 90% of Welsh lamb and beef goes into the European single market. What assurances can the Minister give that access to that market will remain unfettered following the completion of the negotiations?

George Eustice: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point—a number of others have raised it—about the importance of trade. That can be about protecting our standards in respect of the trade deals that we do, but it can also be about access to the European market, which is particularly important for some sectors, notably the sheep sector. That is why the political declaration that was agreed as part of the withdrawal agreement—effectively a heads of terms—sets out the ambition to move to zero-zero tariffs on all goods. That is the approach that we will be taking, as outlined in the political declaration, but it is not dealt with by this particular Bill.

Jonathan Edwards: I know I am pushing the boundaries slightly, but was the Minister at all concerned by the comment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a week ago that there would be no alignment with European standards? If that is the case, there will be no access to EU markets, will there?

George Eustice: The political declaration was very clear, and it is implicit in the withdrawal agreement that we have now put in place that there will be no alignment with EU law. We are seeking agreement on the recognition of equivalence and understandings based on equivalence. It is understood that, yes, there could be some border checks and some additional paperwork, because we will not be aligning with EU law and those rights. I was not alarmed by what the Chancellor said, and I was not surprised by it, as it has been in our manifesto and it is also in the political declaration. I fully support that approach.

Simon Hoare: A moment ago, my hon. Friend was setting out the timetable for applying for the new basic payment. Could he, for the benefit of the Committee, set out in a little more detail when farmers can expect to receive those payments, on the presumption that an application has been legitimate and cleared all the necessary hurdles in order to secure that payment? Are we just going to mirror what exists at the moment, or are we going to create something different?

George Eustice: For this year, the 2020 year, the payment window will be exactly the same as in previous years. The payment window opens on 1 December. Last year, the 2019 year, we paid around 95% of farmers by Christmas or the end of December, and the latest intelligence I have is that up to 97% of farmers have now been paid. So the vast majority of farmers—well over 90% and probably more like 95%—can expect to be paid in December 2020.

Fay Alicia Jones: On that point, I have a farmer in my constituency who is still waiting for his basic payment from last year. Rural Payments Wales is in a mess over a degree of payment. Will there be any opportunity, either in this Bill or in the forthcoming Agriculture Bill, to include a measure to allow compensation when farmers’ payments are delayed by Rural Payments Wales or the Rural Payments Agency?

George Eustice: That is a matter for the Welsh Government. I know that the RPA has had its issues in the past. All paying agencies in all parts of the UK are dealing with an incredibly complex body of law with a complex audit structure around it. As I say, with that being removed, I anticipate that all parts of the UK will find it easier to get payments out in a timely fashion by the end of this year.
I want briefly to touch on some of the other types of rules that are covered by this body of regulation. It sets out all the eligibility criteria—for instance, for common land and how to apply for it. It sets out specific requirements for areas such as the New Forest, which has a separate type of approach. It also sets out all the rules on transferring entitlements. There is a feature of EU law that states that someone can only claim on an area of land on which they have also lodged a so-called entitlement attached to that land, and there is a market in the transferable entitlement. The body of regulation also sets out all the so-called greening rules that were added in the last CAP reform. That includes the crop diversification rules for arable land, which stipulate that such land must have at least three crops. It includes the environmental focus area, which is the calculation someone can apply for their hedges to count towards that area. It lists the types of crops that qualify as leguminous crops for the purpose of the EFA rules. It sets out all the rules on buffer strips, including how wide a buffer strip must be when it is alongside a watercourse, and whether someone is allowed to have arable land or pasture alongside and adjacent to that buffer strip. The list goes on. It lists the types of crops that can count towards the three crop rule. For instance, it stipulates that a cabbage can be deemed to be the same as a cauliflower for the purposes of the three crop rule because they come from the same family. In other cases, it stipulates that certain crops are to be treated as separate.
Hon. Members may well be asking why on earth we will be bringing across regulations of this clunky nature. The answer, as I said at the beginning, is to provide clarity and certainty to farmers for this year only. The common agricultural policy, as currently designed, is a bureaucratic quagmire and we have no intention of retaining it for the long term. However, we recognise that evolving from the system that we have to the one that we want will take some years, and in this particular year we are proposing no change at all.

Dave Doogan: I am grateful to the Minister for this information and for the insight, albeit at a slightly higher level, about how we are to proceed from the Bill into a future relationship between Government and the agricultural sector. How will he detail the relationship between Government, the devolved Administrations and the industry? Can they look forward to a two-way communication whereby they can have confidence that the Government fully understand the ambitions and pressures in the sector as we develop further legislation?

George Eustice: I can say that, for the Bill before us today, we have received legislative consent motions for every part of the UK, including Scotland. It is universally in the interests of every paying agency to have this Bill agreed and on the statute book so that they can pay for this year. Future policy will be a matter for the devolved Administrations, and I know that the Scottish Government will be charting their own course and setting out their own legislation. I know that the Welsh Government, while seeking some provisions in a schedule to the Agriculture Bill, will also now be predominantly striking their own course and making legislation in their own Parliament. It will be very much an issue for the Scottish Government to work with Scottish farmers, but of course we have procedures to co-ordinate around the UK and to set up frameworks where necessary. We also have Joint Ministerial Committees, which I regularly take part in it with my opposite numbers in the devolved Administrations.

Joy Morrissey: Regarding tribunals and disputed claims, are we going to set up a temporary agricultural tribunal or legal system to handle the processing of such claims or disputes? For example, there could be disputes over a buffer strip or over payments or claims, or perhaps when a family member of a deceased farmer has to make a new claim. Will a process be put in place as a temporary measure to handle the necessary legal framework?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The short answer is that we have an appeals system in place. We have the independent agricultural appeals panel, which is drawn from agricultural experts, lawyers, land agents and farmers. It is a lay panel, but it hears complaints and legal objections to penalties coming from farmers. Once the appeals panel has made a recommendation, it comes to the relevant Minister, which is me. I have spent seven years dealing with these appeals, and I can reassure my hon. Friend that I leave no stone unturned in ensuring that farmers who lodge an appeal are given a fair hearing and that the issues they raise are taken into account.

Ben Lake: On the matter of disputes, when it comes to funding allocations between the different Governments of the United Kingdom, how does the Minister envision any disputes on that level being resolved?

George Eustice: In terms of our discussions with the devolved Administrations, these are issues that we resolve through the Joint Ministerial Committee. We have frame- works to do that.
I will take no further interventions, because I want to address the other clauses before we move on to other speeches. I am sure that other hon. Members have a great deal to say. Clause 2 applies the provisions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to the direct payments legislation. This is simply about interpretation, to ensure that our courts interpret this legislation in a way that is consistent with that Act.
Moving on, clause 3 contains regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations in relation to the retained direct payments legislation. The parliamentary procedures that apply are covered in schedule 2, which is about the power to make operability changes to correct deficiencies, such as changing the words “European Commission” to “the relevant authority in England” and so on. It is simply about making the particular provisions that are brought across operable. I will address the amendments to schedule 2 when winding up, because the shadow Minister will want to make his points before I deal with them.
Clause 4 is concerned with the publication of EU law before it is brought across under this Bill. It ensures that the approach taken under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to rules of evidence will apply equally to the legislation we are bringing across. It basically means that the law as it exists in the Official Journal of the European Union just before exit day is the form of law that is brought across.
Finally, clause 5 is a significant addition that I dealt with on Second Reading. It effectively gives us the power to change the financial ceilings to enable us to implement the recommendations of the Bew review for 2020, which will be of particular interest to those in the devolved Administrations. The Bew review recommended that the Scottish Government should receive an uplift in their allocation consistent with what would have been provided under the so-called convergence uplift when that calculation was run. There will be a similar but smaller payment for Wales. The Bew review also recommended that English farmers and farmers in Northern Ireland should not lose out as a result of the top-up payment made to Scotland and Wales. Clause five is important for those who represent the devolved Administrations, and it gives them the financial uplift that some have been requesting for some time. The Bew review also addressed the dispute over allocations that has been discussed many times .
The other clauses in the Bill mainly relate to the interpretation, extent, consequential transitional provisions and the like. The key issues, as I said, are in clause 1, which is why I spent so long on that particular clause.

Daniel Zeichner: I am sure the whole House is grateful to the Minister for his extended and detailed account of clause 1. It was a gentle rural  ramble that suddenly finished with a sprint, so a cynic might imagine that the Government have finished drafting their statement on Huawei, but that would be a very cynical view.
The Opposition have of course enjoyed the great interest shown by Government Members this afternoon. After listening to some of the comments, I hope that there have been no misunderstandings, because I think I heard at one point a suggestion that the CAP was going to be used to pay farmers for not producing anything, when of course that is the whole thrust of this Government’s policies. I hope that Government Members will look closely at what the Government are suggesting.
The Opposition, of course, support this Bill and the direction of travel, because there is a clear funding gap between the ending of direct payments to farmers under the CAP and the Government’s considerably delayed Agriculture Bill, which will set out the new system of payments from 2021. We fully appreciate the need for financial security for farmers in the interim, but we have several continuing concerns about this Bill, because it has been rushed to make up for the fact that the Government have lost the last 14 months to delays and wrangling and have reintroduced the Agriculture Bill just days before we leave the European Union. Unsurprisingly, farmers are anxious, and of course the urgent environmental action that we need at a time of climate crisis is also being delayed.
In this last-minute rush to fill the legislative gap, there have been several missed opportunities and a number of proposals that cut corners on the parliamentary scrutiny of which they are worthy. Our surviving amendments challenge the need for Ministers to take the direct powers included in the Bill by too often using the negative or made affirmative procedure. It was a delight to hear the Minister at one point extolling the virtues of full scrutiny, and I very much hope that he will be able to transfer that thought into support for our amendments.
In clause 3(1)(a), the Government stipulate that the regulations to remedy any deficiencies in EU law being retained in the Bill will be subject to the made affirmative procedure, and so will be decided and implemented without parliamentary debate, which we think is wrong. Clause 6(1) contains a broad Henry VIII power that would effectively allow the Secretary of State to make any regulations they deemed appropriate as a consequence of the Bill—a wide approach that has been made subject to the negative resolution procedure, which allows for no parliamentary scrutiny of the decisions being made. That comes despite the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee having said that any Henry VII power included when changing primary legislation should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to allow proper debate.
We appreciate that swift action might be needed in both cases, and we continue to be supportive, but we are simply making the argument, which the Minister made himself, that there should be the opportunity to scrutinise such further regulations properly, which of course is a legitimate role of this House.
With reference to schedule 2, amendment 8 deals with clause 3(1)(a) and amendment 10 relates to clause 6(1), to subject both clauses to the affirmative resolution procedure to allow for proper debate. Amendment 9 is linked to amendments 8 and 10. I stress again that we offer those amendments in a constructive spirit. We want the new Agriculture Bill to work to incentivise a whole  range of public goods in return for public money, but the urgency of the need for this change in our farm payments system cannot come at the expense of unnecessary ministerial power grabs.
Clause 3(8) is a sunset clause, and we think there was a missed opportunity here to allow greater certainty for farmers. The key question that we ask people to consider is the Bill’s relationship with the Agriculture Bill and whether we are giving farmers sufficient certainty while we await the passage of the latter. Without prefiguring the discussions around the Agriculture Bill, we know that it will be highly controversial, because we do not see any guarantees from the Government that, in post-Brexit trade deals, they will guard against imports of food produced to lower standards than our own. That is a very big debate—many organisations stressed the point strongly in a letter to the Government at the weekend, and whether there will be a great future for British agriculture depends on the defending of standards. The matter is not likely to be resolved quickly and will likely be a protracted issue in any negotiations with the USA. One would have to be a great optimist to assume that the situation will necessarily be resolved in detail by the end of the year.

Simon Hoare: The hon. Gentleman gets to the nub of the argument about equivalence, animal welfare and general agricultural standards. Notwithstanding the fact that the negotiation will be detailed and probably tricky at times, does he take any comfort at all from the words of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Minister of State and, indeed, other Government spokesmen about the starting point from which they begin, namely that there will be equivalence and that our markets will not be swamped? I represent a very rural constituency, and this matter is a worry for me—he will remember that from previous agriculture Bill proceedings—but I am certainly taking great comfort from what those on the Treasury Bench are saying.

Daniel Zeichner: I am sure that we will return to this issue over the coming weeks and months. We hear what the Government say, but the simple way of resolving the matter would be to put something into the Bill, which is what many people would like to see. The point in this context is that we would all agree that this is not easy. It may well take time, and it will be difficult.
Alongside the potential delays, the National Audit Office has pointed to teething problems with the Government’s planned environmental land management schemes, which are terribly important to how our rural areas will be supported in future. Added to the 14-month delay to the Agriculture Bill, the Opposition are simply not convinced that everything will be in place for the new farming payment system by the end of the year.
We want to see an urgent shift to a payment system that rewards public goods, environmental protection and welfare standards, but there is a danger of continuing uncertainty for farmers who will have to make decisions in just a few months’ time about their plans for the following year. If the introduction of the new payment system is delayed, it is imperative that a continuation mechanism is in place in this Bill.
The new Agriculture Bill proposes powers to extend direct payments in future, so we will doubtless discuss those powers at that point, but the fact remains that, as  we stand here today, that Bill has not even had its Second Reading. We are starting with this Bill, and we believe it would have been wiser for the Government to have re-examined the sunset clause to allow the possibility of extending the provision of direct payments to farmers beyond 2020 in the event of any delay. That would have given confidence and, frankly, would have reflected what many of us think is likely to happen anyway.

Tim Farron: The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. As things stand, we are certain that the BPS will begin to be phased out in 12 months’ time, and there is a possibility that we will have the environmental land management scheme by 2028. In principle, he and I probably agree that scheme is a good thing but, in practice, it does not yet exist. Does he agree there is a danger that, in the seven-year transition, we will lose many of the farmers we need to deliver those public goods?

Daniel Zeichner: I suspect that discussion will continue, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I said on Second Reading, we have replaced the certainty in the system. The only certainty we have now is of future uncertainty, which makes it extremely difficult for people who are planning ahead.
The Government have expressed total confidence that a further period of direct payments will not be needed. I wonder whether we will be having this discussion again in a year’s time. They are absolutely confident that there will be no further delays and, frankly, we hope they are right, but if they are not, I suspect we and others will be quick to remind them of the problems they caused by failing to prioritise safeguards in such an extension.
Another missed opportunity is the exclusion of measures to provide potential compensation to those farmers who have faced, and likely will face, delays to their payments. I cannot help noticing that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) made this point, and I am sure she will happily support us when we return to this topic in future.
Although the Government have rightly lauded the efforts of the Rural Payments Agency to pay farmers on time this year, I am afraid we are all well aware of the previous difficulties, poor performance and delayed payments in its management of direct payments to farmers.
Of course, it is not only about the Rural Payments Agency’s past performance. Look at what it is facing now: there is a real risk that it will be diverted by planning ahead for changes next year while we enter this period of uncertainty about our post-Brexit trade negotiations and the complex provisions of the Agriculture Bill. The danger is that we will find late payments building up again at precisely the time when farmers will most need financial certainty. A sensible response to that threat would have been to make provisions to enable farmers to be compensated if they suffered hardship or financial loss because of a delay in payments under this Bill. I hope the Government will duly consider a compensation mechanism for any such delays.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: It is a great pleasure to call the newly re-elected Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Mr Neil Parish.

Neil Parish: I thank Members for reappointing me as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. As I said in my spiel on seeking re-election, my door will always be open to Members on both sides of the House. That was not just a ploy to be re-elected; it is very much my philosophy. I encourage Members to stand for membership of the Committee.
I direct Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome this Bill, as it is essential that farmers have certainty for the coming year. Fifty-eight per cent. of farm profitability comes from the basic payment scheme, and we need to make sure that we not only retain those payments. As we look to our trade deals and our future agricultural production, it would be great to see more of our farming income coming from what farmers are paid for their produce, rather than just from support payments, much as we welcome them.
I thank the Minister for his frank, open and detailed breakdown of the Bill, and I will take this opportunity to consider all the clauses together. I also thank him because, over the years, he has fought hard on various cases of hardship due to farm payments. Of course, he has often been stymied by the rules of the common agricultural policy. I think I correctly interpret what he said, which was that, even in this coming year, he will have a little more flexibility on dealing with this, which is essential.
The Minister’s speech was interesting, because I made a claim back in the 1990s under the integrated administration and control system—I queued up at Exeter to get the Ordnance Survey maps—and I saw the complete disaster of that system, which was quickly corrected the following year. We built on that system to get it almost right, and then the next Labour Government came in and changes were made to the common agricultural policy. It went from direct payments for sheep, cattle and crops to area payments and, again, there was another huge problem with the system: delays, delays and more delays. Lessons probably need to be learned from that. We have had our own problems with the system when we were in government, so I am not saying it is all down to the Labour Government. We all have to plead a certain amount of guilt in this process.
I welcome this Bill, but we need to make sure we get the new system right before we implement it. Previously we implemented systems and then tried to get them right. As I have said before, the trouble with the present system is that farmers are always guilty until they can prove their innocence. In a court of law in this country, we are professed to be innocent until proven guilty.
The Minister talked about speaking to the head of the Rural Payments Agency, and a real cultural change is needed. For all the rights and wrongs of the CAP—Europe’s system of fines and draconian rules—we now have a chance to make it more flexible. The Rural Payments Agency will need to give farmers more advice, because it is the policeman—perhaps it should now be “policeperson”—and it has previously found it difficult to advise farmers when making those payments. I would like to see that culture change completely, because it is necessary.

Bim Afolami: Does my hon. Friend agree that, on this question of rural payments, many of the changes needed are not just  cultural but ministerial? They do not require extra changes in legislation, so there is an opportunity for the Minister, the Department and, indeed, Members of this House to get things right over the coming months. I have many constituents, as I am sure he does, who complain about the system very much.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend raises a good point. If I interpret the Minister correctly, there will be much more flexibility to look at individual cases and have some discretion. I would like to see that written in blood before I am certain it will happen, as we have had so many problems over the years. My hon. Friend will know that we have had these problems not only in his constituency but across the country, and not for the want of the Minister trying to get this sorted. I believe he will, but we need to be aware of it.
I also welcome the Minister’s setting out that the entitlements for claims and all those things will be covered not only under this Bill, but in the new system. Entitlements for making claims have always been a major problem over the years, and as the systems have changed many people have fallen out of the various systems for being able to make a claim and then have had to appeal. Some of those appeals have been allowed, but some have not, and there has been some real hardship in some cases. This issue is important as we move forward.
One Conservative Member made a point about smallholdings, and it will be interesting to see what we do on that in the future, because at the moment we exclude those under 5 hectares from payments. If it is an area payment, I can see some logic to it, because of the number of claims, but if we are to move to a more environmental system, should not some of those smallholders also be entitled to a payment? I accept that that is very much for the next Agriculture Bill, but today’s Bill does allow for a continuation of payment and, we hope, some flexibility.
The Bew report recommended changes to the way in which the UK CAP funds are distributed among the UK nations. Following the review, the Government increased the amount of direct payment for Scotland and Wales. I very much welcome the money going to Scotland and Wales, but as an English farmer and someone representing an English seat, I naturally want to make sure that that goes as extra money and not at the expense of those payments coming to English and Northern Irish farmers. I think I have had the assurance from the Minister that that is the case.

Fay Alicia Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that farmers in my constituency are at somewhat of a disadvantage, in that the Welsh Government want to phase direct payments out much faster than the UK Government? My local farmers who sit on the border between Wales and England will be looking over the hedge at neighbours who enjoy an awful lot more support from their Government.

Neil Parish: I very much welcome my new hon. Friend—it is great to have her here representing Brecon and Radnorshire. She makes an interesting point. I believe we are almost going too fast in transferring from one payment to another, given the history of not always getting these things correct in the first place, and so I would take a bit more time. The Welsh Government are  going faster and that is the wrong way to go, because we have to make sure that the environmental schemes are up and running, and that they are not only delivering for the environment, but delivering cash into the pockets of farmers. I made this point last week when I said on Second Reading that some farmers believe they can replace all the money that comes from the basic farm payment with the new environmental schemes. They may or may not be able to do that. Perhaps some on permanent pasture, upland and grassland might do so, but others might not, and in Wales, that will be piling on the agony if they are not at all careful.

James Cartlidge: Obviously, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his re-election success. I very much agree with him that we need a lengthy transition and a stable period as we move to the new system; surely the important thing is investment from farmers, as ultimately we need higher productivity, but in order to get to that they need to have stability in the interim to plan that investment, with security about the outcome, until the new system is in place.

Neil Parish: I welcome my hon. Friend’s comment, because he is absolutely right. I see a problem in the future, not only with this Bill, but with the future Bill; we rightly talk much about enhancing the environment, but we also talk about the productivity and profitability of agriculture, and we must make sure the two knit together. I am absolutely not convinced that they do at the moment—I am sure the Minister and Government will persuade us otherwise. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says, because farmers will not want to earn all their income from environmental payments, and that is not the way forward, so they therefore need to earn an income from what they produce. That is the important bit: how we have a productive agricultural system and a more environmentally based one, and how we incorporate the two. I am sure that we can, and I know the Minister has many ideas, so I look forward to that.
This Bill also deals with the Rural Development Programme for England—the development money that sometimes goes to rural areas; it goes into village halls and all sorts of wider aspects. I take it that the Bill will also cover those sorts of payments for the forthcoming year, because I know that in my area in the Blackdown hills and in others it is very important.
I intervened on the Minister to ask about the issue of our payments to the EU, but I do not think I got a complete answer. He assured us that we will not be making a double payment—the payment we pay to our farmers will not then also be paid to the EU. At the moment, we pay more into the CAP than we receive from it, so, to some degree, we subsidise agriculture across the whole of the EU. As we leave this year, we will not be making that payment to them and so we should be saving money. My question was about that and he may be able to deal with it in his summing up. I do not know whether we have the detail of that yet, but it is essential that we make that saving.
Going back to Wales and Scotland, I very much welcome the extra money there. I am very much looking forward to the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill next week. One thing that we hope we will be able to do when we get the Select Committees back up and running  is look at detail about how these new schemes are going to work on the ground, and how they are not only going to deliver a better environment and better biodiversity, but allow good quality, high animal welfare production. We very much enjoy that in this country, across the whole of our four nations, and it is essential.
One or two Conservative colleagues might throw up their hands in horror at this last statement. We have to make sure that as we roll out the new system, we take some of the parts of the basic farm payment scheme and the CAP that have worked reasonably well and we do not throw all the babies out with the bathwater. We need to make sure we take those aspects of what is good about the current system and enshrine them in the new one, while making it more adaptable and much lighter on its feet, and changing the culture of the RPA and DEFRA. We have good Ministers and a Secretary of State who will be able to interpret and help farmers into this new world, so that in the end we can deliver a better environment and better food production, and produce more food in this country, not less, and look forward to a bright future. I very much welcome this Bill.

Deidre Brock: At the risk of repeating myself, I am going to repeat myself. The Bill is needed only as a result of the Tory party’s descent into a Brexit fetish. Having to craft emergency legislation to do what was until now normal and routine seems almost a metaphor for the chaos to come. Here we are compensating for a Government who failed to plan and seem surprised that the logical consequences of Brexit are coming to pass. Like those Brexit supporters who have been surprised to discover that the loss of freedom of movement will in fact apply to them, too, the Government seem ill prepared for a future outside the EU.
The Bill needs to go through to paper over some of the cracks and allow the business of farming and crofting to go on. No one will oppose it, so I will not take up much time speaking about it. Nor will I do what other Members did in the earlier stages and haver on about matters unconnected to the Bill. I will not, for example, talk about how crofters and farmers will face massive uncertainty at the autumn markets if there are tariff barriers and trade hurdles with the EU. Nor will I lay out the succession of broken promises from one UK Government after another. I will not point out the problems that agricultural businesses will face in importing fertiliser, animal feed, herbicides, pesticides, machinery and so on. Let all those other things wait their turn in the debates on the maelstrom of Brexit consequences. I may, though, mention the purloined convergence cash from time to time, and demand that its return does not simply become a bit of public relations. It should be returned with humility, rather than a fanfare. We can hope, I suppose.
I wonder whether Ministers have had the chance to consider the questions they were asked and failed to answer last week. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister could have a wee listen, because I am keen to hear his answers. Those questions came from Members representing a range of parties and a wide geographical spread. The Minister suggested last week that the issue of possible  currency fluctuations had been considered, but he did not offer an answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). Will any drop in the value of sterling see a corresponding uplift in farm payments, to take account of the increased costs of the imported products that farmers need?
In answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who asked whether there would be a multi-annual framework, the Secretary of State said that the details had not been worked out yet. Surely the basic framework of the scheme is more than a detail. When are we likely to hear the details? The Secretary of State also said that she had yet to decide on basic payments, which have been raised by other Members today. That is the kind of information farmers are likely to be desperate to get so that they can plan their businesses. When will we see the details, or even the outline of them? More importantly, when will farmers be getting news about how much they are likely to get—or some way to work it out?
The Secretary of State said that the division of moneys was yet to be decided; when will we hear details about the settlement for the devolved Administrations? While I am on that subject, let me get back to the convergence funding, because it is important. The convergence funding was payable to Scotland to even out farm payments, taking into account the extent of Scotland’s less-favoured areas. Last week, however, the Minister said that
“there will be an uplift in funding for Scotland and Wales to reflect their severely disadvantaged area status”,
and that
“the uplift for Scotland and Wales will be paid for with new funds. There will therefore be no loss to the BPS payments for English or Northern Ireland farmers.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 217.]
That means that there is no levelling of payment, Scottish farmers are being short-changed again, and that severe comparative disadvantage to which the Minister referred remains. Will the Minister give assurances that additional funding will come to Scotland—and, of course, go to Wales—to address that imbalance? That is, after all, what the convergence funding was supposed to do.
On the unsettled issue of long-term guarantees, will Scotland’s farmers be able to rely on the cash going to Scotland from the Treasury? Will the funding keep pace with the inflationary costs that farmers and crofters will face? It really concerned me earlier to hear the Minister’s language on future support. As the English system moves away from providing support for food producers, will the funding available for Scotland’s food producers be maintained in real terms? It seems clear to me that the proposed scheme for England will store up some serious long-term problems in food production, without actually delivering on the public goods that the environmental campaigners hope for. That will become clearer as modifications to those public goods are made under the provisions of clause 50 of the new Agriculture Bill, but the ability to provide subsidies for grouse moors and monoculture forests is already written into the first clause of that Bill.
All those will, in the main, be matters for English politicians and campaigners to debate. As the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said last week, farmers will be asking how it affects them. My concern  is for the effect that the Bill might have on Scotland and Scottish food production, so what guarantees can Ministers offer us today about the security of future funding for Scottish farms crofts and food production? The Bill will not be opposed, but equally those questions will not go away.

Simon Hoare: I welcome the Bill for several reasons. First, it provides us all with an opportunity, in this increasingly urbanised media and world, to remind ourselves of the important role that farming plays, not only crucially in respect of food security but, as other Members have alluded to, in respect of landscape management, which clearly assists our tourism sector, and water quality, which clearly affects tourism in coastal areas.
The role that agriculture plays is pivotal. Part of the problem is that a lot of people glean their knowledge or experience of farming and the agricultural sector only from “Countryfile” and “The Archers”, which provide a slightly narrow picture of what it is like. They are both great programmes; they are staple listening and viewing in the Hoare house—and, indeed, where I live, as well. Sorry, I just could not resist. Nevertheless, too many people think that farmers are loaded and that the Bill is just a bung to already wealthy people. Those of us who know farmers, represent farmers and talk to them in our constituencies know that that is very far from the truth.
It is important that in times of uncertainty, as we transition from a 40-year membership of the EU to striking out on our own, we provide certainty where we can. As I said to the Minister in an intervention, arable of course needs certainty, but so too do those sectors where there are greater fluctuations, either in consumer trends, price fluctuation, weather or disease. The lamb sector, beef sector and dairy sector are the mainstays of the Blackmore Vale’s agricultural focus, while the Cranborne Chase in the east of my constituency is more chalk land—

James Cartlidge: That’s Cheltenham!

Simon Hoare: Yes, chalk land, just like the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). I thank my hon. Friend for that sedentary heckle. It is more chalk land and therefore is predominantly, although not exclusively, arable.
Certainty is important because we are dealing with long-term planning. Do farmers have the confidence to ask lenders for money to buy a new piece of farm equivalent? Do they have the confidence or certainty to plant a certain crop? Some of my local farmers in North Dorset now grow milling grains for the German beer sector. Some of them are growing white poppies, the stalks of which are exported to Hungary for medical purposes—so that medical opium can be extracted to provide painkillers. If someone is going to put their herd or flock into a growth spurt, and if they want to see them calve and lamb, they want certainty that there is some basic underpinning to their sector. That is what the Bill does, which is why it is to be supported.
The huge scope for agritech is important, and I am certain that we will hear that echoed in the debates on the Agriculture Bill—this Bill and the Agriculture Bill are in effect two sides of the same coin. Again, the agritech sector needs certainty. There are productivity  benefits and environmental benefits to it, so we must make sure that the sector, which is growing and really taking root in the UK, has the confidence to continue.
My final point is with regard to audit. Various Members have probed the Minister about the performance of the Rural Payments Agency and how, effectively, it will look. Some within the agency will be suffering from Stockholm syndrome, and they need to be freed from that and to be able to take a lighter touch. However, in reference to the point about the audit trail made by the Chairman of the Select Committee—I congratulate him on his recent election—we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The British taxpayer must be certain that the payments made to farmers are fair, needed and transparent. Therefore, let us make sure that there is a clear audit trail on this homegrown UK system, so that not only British farmers have confidence and certainty, but the British taxpayer has certainty that their money is being put to good purpose to support and to encourage agriculture, that vital mainstay of the British economy.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on his re-election as Chair of the Select Committee. He brings a wealth of experience to that position, and we wish him well in it.
I am very pleased to speak in this Bill Committee, both on direct payments and on the commitment that the Minister has given. As always, I am pleased to see him in his place. He understands agriculture, just as he understands fishing, for which he also has responsibility. We look forward to his co-operation with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and particularly with the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Edwin Poots, who is my party colleague.
The agrifood sector is vital to the economy of Northern Ireland, and of my constituency in particular, whether we are talking about milk, beef, sheep, lamb, poultry or arable crops. Sustainability, to which the Minister referred, is critical to enable the agricultural sector to maintain its high food standards, and to gain through its partnership with the manufacturing companies.

Neil Parish: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that family farms are a structure that is to be found across the whole United Kingdom, but nowhere more than in Northern Ireland. This Bill and the future of agriculture are critical to Northern Ireland.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree wholeheartedly, and will go into that shortly.
I want to talk about the farmers who do well, the companies that work through them, and the partnerships that are established. Lakeland Dairies, which employs some 260 people, produces milk and powder and exports them across the world. There is also Rich Sauces, Willowbrook Foods and Mash Direct. Those are just four of the companies in Northern Ireland that work in partnership with farmers. Farmers with direct payments enable those companies to produce good products, which they sell across the world.
Farmers in my constituency and in Mid Down are ranked second for milk production across the whole of Northern Ireland. I declare an interest, Madam Deputy  Speaker: I am not only a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, but a farmer, so I understand the importance to my neighbours of milk and the whole sector. I received correspondence from the Ulster Farmers Union, the sister organisation of the National Farmers Union. I welcomed the announcement from Her Majesty’s Treasury on farm funding for 2020, as it delivers on the commitment made by the Conservative party, and by the Minister. It is essential that Northern Ireland’s share of UK farm funding is maintained. It is my understanding that Her Majesty’s Treasury has confirmed to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in the Northern Ireland Assembly that the money will be rolled over from 2019 to 2020.
We hope that DAERA will be able to pay 100% of payments by mid-October. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss the nitty-gritty directly with the new Minister in Northern Ireland, and is there an understanding of how we will achieve the things that we wish to?
Getting a new Northern Ireland agriculture policy up and running by 2021 will be very ambitious, but I hope that the Government are up to the challenge. Last week, the Ulster Farmers Union’s beef and lamb policy committee met to discuss the priorities for the new Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister. The UFU’s hill farming policy committee will meet this week to look at its key priorities. I tell the Minister that because it is important that we work together, and that what is happening in Northern Ireland is mirrored by what is happening here.
I assume that a key priority is to re-establish the areas of natural constraints scheme, especially now that the flattening of payments is frozen at five sevenths of the commitment. Beef and lamb are key priorities for support. Again, I put that on the record because it is important to the farmers back home. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, we have small farmers in Northern Ireland who depend on the direct payment scheme to enable their farms to deliver profitability. Beef and lamb are key priorities for support. Immediate-use targeted suckler cow payments are needed to stabilise the numbers. We also need immediate examination of the impact of the €100 million beef exceptional aid measure scheme received by Irish beef farmers. DAERA must consider emergency support for Northern Ireland beef producers.
Let me turn to the safety net—the volatility mitigation support. The Ulster Farmers Union requests that a deficiency scheme, or slaughter premium scheme, be established for the Northern Ireland beef sector. A draft proposal has already been submitted to DAERA. I am keen to know whether the Minister has had the chance to look at those things yet, as they will provide a safety net for farm businesses and the rural economy. We need the Minister to be involved with the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister on that.
We also need an immediate new targeted breeding ewe payment—similarly, a roll-over of the scheme in the Republic of Ireland. Such targeted support will contribute positively to sheep welfare. We want immediate re-instatement of DAERA funding for GrassCheck 2020, Beef from Grass and Land from Grass.
The Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister has committed to doing all in his power for the sector, but we also need the Minister’s commitment on this. I am pleased to see that in clause 3(2), the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of
“DAERA, if the regulations relate to that body of law as it applies in or as regards Northern Ireland.”
It is clear that the Minister and this Government have given their full commitment to working along with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that these things happen.
The Ulster Farmers Union has concerns that the farming sector in Northern Ireland will fall under EU controls; we would like assurance from the Minister that that will not be the case. We want to be treated the same in every way as the rest of the United Kingdom. Close co-operation between the Ministers in Westminster and the Northern Assembly is vital.
I conclude with a point on the environmental schemes. They are critical if the Government are to meet their target of net zero carbon by 2045. The tree planting, for instance, will result in trees that will become the lungs of the world. The Glenwherry grouse project is sponsored through direct payments, but it also enables the environment to grow and sustain itself, so that it is there for the future.
I very much welcome what the Minister has said. I look forward to working co-operatively with him, and beseech him to ensure that he works alongside the Northern Ireland Assembly. If that happens, we all gain.

Dave Doogan: I have very much enjoyed the observations from around these islands in this debate. I would like to reflect on the answer that the Minister gave me, and offer him an opportunity to expand on it a little in his summing up. I asked how Ministers in the UK Government would interact with the agricultural sector, its representative bodies—the NFU and the National Farmers Union of Scotland—and Ministers in the various devolved Administrations on how we take forward the next cycle of developing a post common agricultural policy, post-EU agricultural framework for the United Kingdom.
Although the devolved Administrations have substantive authority and control over many of these issues, they are necessarily subsidiary to the UK. I definitely wish that that was not the case, but in so far as it remains the case, it is incumbent on Ministers to take a co-operative and collegiate approach to setting objectives for developing, and delivering the very best for, our agricultural sector. I would like to hear how the Government intend to do that.
In the Minister’s response to a question from the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), we heard about the phasing of the changes as we evolve after the common agricultural policy, and about how that phasing would be undertaken. That is a key element of understanding exactly what farmers and representative bodies wish to see. As the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, there are elements of the CAP that are worth keeping, and the Minister would do well to ensure that he liaises with people on the frontline of agriculture about what those elements are. There must be recognition that although the Bill bridges a gap, it does not give an opportunity for the meaningful transition of long-term planning. Many colleagues across the  House have spoken about the need for investment in capital equipment and machinery because of the changes in the produce of farms. It is important that there is some indication or signposting about transferring and evolving the post-CAP scenario into something that will really deliver meaningful material change for agriculture.

George Eustice: I wish to address some of the points raised by hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, who tabled some amendments.
On the claim that the Bill has been rushed, the reason that we need to get it through Parliament now is that we cannot allow an air gap to open up in the application of these regulations. We leave the EU at the end of January. Members will be aware, from what I said earlier, that the scheme year is already open. Farmers are already making decisions about cropping and how much land they must leave fallow. Many of the deadlines are already upon us. The scheme window opens in March, so we must have the legislation in place to ensure that the schemes can be implemented. That brings me to my main point, regarding Opposition amendments 8 and 9 to schedule 2, which would remove the made affirmative procedure. The regulations must be made by exit day so that there is not an air gap. If we waited for the affirmative procedure, these necessary regulations would not be in place in time; there would not be operable law in place. That is why the made affirmative procedure is appropriate for clause 3(1) and (3).
The shadow Minister suggested that we needed a provision to extend the Bill. We do not need such a provision because the Agriculture Bill will replace these arrangements. As far as compensation and late payment penalties are concerned, the simple fact is that we need to simplify the scheme to ensure that people are paid on time, not to have lots of complex remapping. That is what we intend to achieve through this legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading.

George Eustice: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank the House for the debate on this Bill, which is so vital for the agricultural sector across the UK. I recognise the frustrations that some Members might have had because of the need for the Bill in the first place, given that the Agriculture Bill is on its way. Let me reaffirm that this Bill makes no policy changes; it is about continuity. It is a small, technical Bill to ensure that the Government and devolved Administrations are able to pay direct payments to farmers for the 2020 scheme year. Our future intentions for agriculture in England have been laid out by the Government in our Agriculture Bill, which was introduced on 16 January. We know that farmers need stability, certainty and a smooth transition to our new system of public money for public goods, so we will not switch off direct payments overnight. That would be irresponsible. There will be a  seven-year agricultural transition period, allowing a system of public money for public goods to be introduced gradually.
I acknowledge that the Bill is being passed according to a tight timescale. However, it is imperative that it and the necessary secondary legislation are in place and in force by exit day, which will be upon us at the end of this week. The withdrawal agreement will stop the CAP direct payments legislation applying in the UK for the 2020 scheme year. This was intended so that the UK would not have to pay into the EU’s next budget cycle, which funds the 2020 direct payment year.

Neil Parish: I am going to try once more to get an answer from the Minister. We will not be paying into the common agricultural policy money that comes back to us, but will we be paying the amount that we paid before, which contributed to the CAP across the rest of the European Union?

George Eustice: I am sorry that I was not able to address my hon. Friend’s point previously. We will not be contributing to the next multi-annual financial framework or the 2021 budget. Therefore, not only will we not be contributing and getting back money for our farmers—we will pay that ourselves—but we will not be paying into this scheme year for EU farmers, because we will not be contributing to that part of the budget.
I am pleased that the Bill is becoming law so that we can ensure that farmers in each and every part of the UK have the certainty they need as we leave the CAP, and embark on our new and ambitious programme. The Bill has received legislative consent motions from every part of the UK, including Northern Ireland, even though the new Administration formed only recently, and I concur with the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Luke Pollard: I thank the Minister for repeating what he said in Committee of the whole House. There is cross-party support for the Bill but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said, that does not mean that there are not some issues worth highlighting. As I said on Second Reading, I declare an interest in that I am a proud brother of a sheep farmer in Cornwall who farms rare breed sheep and is married to a beef farmer; in fact, they are both based just up the road from the Minister’s constituency.
We will not be opposing the Bill, but I need to add the climate crisis to the context that the Minister set out, because listening to the remarks of Government Members there seems to be a slight disconnect between what is in this Bill and the forthcoming Agriculture Bill, and what is in the notes that they are being given to read out. It is really important that we get this right. The Government are proposing moving from a system of supporting farmers via the land they own to a system of supporting farmers based on environmental land management and other environmental public goods. This will be a good scheme if delivered correctly. It is not a subsidy for productivity or food production. After listening to some of the speeches on Second Reading and today, I am concerned that not all Government Members have quite understood this, so I encourage colleagues to consult the recently re-elected Chair of the Select Committee  on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to whom I pass on my congratulations; it is always good to see Members from Devon in places of authority.
It is important that we get this right because if we are fighting on the wrong pitch, we cannot do a decent job of scrutinising the biggest fundamental changes to our agricultural system since the Labour Government’s introduction of the Agriculture Act of 1947. That is why we need to make sure that this is done properly.
The Minister could address elements raised by his hon. Friends and, indeed, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, about the future of the Rural Payments Agency. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) raised some valid concerns about the culture of the RPA. I commend the work of the officials there who have been working under immense pressure not only because of the potential changes how the CAP has worked but because their budget has gone down from £237.6 million when the Conservatives came to power in 2010 to just £95 million in 2017-18. If we are to change our agricultural system, the culture of the organisations that work in agriculture will also need to change, and that will need to be properly scrutinised and given time to bed in. It would be worth the Minister reconsidering our amendments that would have given Ministers slightly more leeway to look at that.
This Bill needs to be seen in concert with the Agriculture Bill. I appreciate that the Minister said that time is of the essence, and indeed it is, but time has not been of the essence over the past 14 months as Ministers sat on the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill and the Environment Bill. They have been taking it very easy, with a laid-back and pedestrian attitude. It is therefore somewhat cheeky but appropriate for the Minister to say in this context that parliamentary scrutiny cannot be delivered now because we have taken so long to get to this point. That excuse needs a bit more work, because we need to guarantee that Henry VIII powers are not being used disproportionately. I fear that in this setting they should have been used in a slightly different manner. We do need to get this right.
There are also elements of how we can support rare breeds, and other items that were discussed on Second Reading but were not mentioned in Committee and are still issues of concern for our rural communities—not only for hill farming, which I mentioned before, but for crofters, as raised by colleagues in the Scottish National party. We need to make sure that those specific types of farming are supported in any extension or new form of agricultural support. The Minister has a timeline whereby he wishes to reform agricultural support in the next few years or so, but by loading all the changes towards the end of that process, and not the start, we are giving our farmers notice that there will be considerable changes but not enough time to get it right.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) spoke about the importance of the ELM schemes and getting those right. This is a technical detail that I am not sure that everyone has been following. If we are to get this right, it is really important that the ELM schemes are properly scrutinised and given time so that we can not only see what the consequences are but improve them before there is a large-scale roll-out. The farming sector is willing to work with Ministers on  this to get it right. We know that the “public money for public goods” approach is a philosophy that is supported by many in the farming communities, but we cannot have a new philosophy, a new approach and a new funding system implemented too fast without the proper time to bed it in and improve it to make sure that it all works. The Minister is speeding through this Bill when we could have the option of looking at whether the system needs to be extended for a further year in due course.

Jim Shannon: On the point about the importance of this transfer, does the hon. Gentleman feel that it is very important in terms our sheep markets, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said? The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) referred to the 95% of lamb produce that goes out of Wales. In Northern Ireland the figure is 97%. With the changes coming in, it is very important that we hold on to the markets where we can sell that stuff in the meantime.

Luke Pollard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. This goes to the heart of some of the debates that might transition into our discussions on the Agriculture Bill.
I want us to have a farming system that reflects the climate crisis, taking due cognisance of food miles and the carbon intensity of importing food from one side of the planet to another when our home-grown local produce is of exceptional quality and something that we can be very proud of. Speaking as a west country MP—indeed, the Minister is another—I think we need to recognise that the south-west creates some of the most fantastic foodstuffs in the country. Representatives from right around the country have their own produce that they can be very proud of. British produce is something that we should be very proud of. I encourage all Members to support buying goods with the red tractor logo to make sure that we take steps to encourage consumer behaviour in buying local.
That is really important, because in any future trade arrangements discussed in other legislative vehicles, we need to ensure that our UK farmers are not undercut. It is important that we set out what that means, because chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef are of concern to many people. This does not mean that UK farmers will be treating their chickens with chlorine or using antibiotics on an industrial scale as US agriculture does; it means that we will be allowing access to our market for food produced in that way. It is not the chlorine or the antibiotics that are the main concern—it is the fact that they are used in the first place because the animal welfare standards for those animals are so low. We will need to rehearse and repeat this argument as we get closer to Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill.
It is also important to set out that we need a fairer form of farm support that makes sure that our farmers get their payments on time. Improvements have been made but there is still more progress to be made. We need to support our farmers in decarbonising agriculture, partly by allowing our natural habitats to thrive. We must ensure that farm run-off does not pollute our watercourses, as we heard earlier. We must create a system where we are moving effectively and efficiently towards public money for public goods, not a form of farm subsidy.
This Bill completes a technical amendment that the Minister could, should and probably would have made a year ago, if he had been allowed to by the Whips. I am glad it has been done now. However, as we lead up to the Agriculture Bill, we must make sure that we have a system of farm support, and a debate, that is worthy of the importance of the high-quality, nutritious, locally produced, decarbonising food production that all our farmers and, indeed, our voters want to see.

Deidre Brock: I thank the Minister for his contributions, but I was saddened that he chose not to answer any of my questions, so I will just put them on the record once again.
I was certainly waiting for an answer to my question about convergence moneys. Convergence money was supposed to level up—that being the phrase du jour—our support for farmers and crofters across the UK, paid as it was for the extent of less-favoured areas in which they are largely located. Ensuring that Northern Irish and English farmers retain their uplift means that the whole purpose of convergence moneys being awarded has been effectively ignored. I would love to hear what the Government will be doing to address that.
May I ask again what compensation for currency fluctuations farmers and crofters can expect? When can we see the details of multi-annual financial frameworks, the future basic payments, and, very importantly for Scottish farmers and crofters, the settlement that the devolved Administrations will receive?

Steven Baker: I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said and have taken a moment to digest it. She mentioned compensating farmers and crofters for currency movements. Does the SNP propose to compensate all international traders for currency movements? Could she tell us a bit more about what she proposes?

Deidre Brock: We are talking specifically about the payments that are being made at the moment, so I am not really sure why the hon. Gentleman wants to drag in a completely separate subject.
Given the currency fluctuations that are occurring and have of course occurred since the EU referendum and the plummeting of the pound, most farmers would expect that some sort of compensation should be at least contemplated by the Government going forward. That is the extent of my contributions for now, but I hope that at some stage, perhaps during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, some of the questions that I have raised can be addressed by the Minister.

Tim Farron: Adding to comments that others have made, this is undoubtedly necessary legislation and we certainly will not seek to oppose it. It is a small amount of certainty in a sea of uncertainty for our farmers—certainly for mine in Cumbria.
When I speak to farmers throughout the lakes and dales and the rest of south Cumbria, they tell me that their concerns regarding our departure from the European Union are manifold. One undoubtedly is the future of direct payments and the environmental payments that we now refer to as coming under pillar two, but the concern about trade deals is massively significant. Over 90%  of Cumbrian farm exports are to the single market, so a deal is critical. The problem is, of course, that if we are desperate for a quick deal, the chances of us getting a good one are, almost by definition, reduced.
It seems to me that there are three options; I cannot think of a fourth one. Option one is that we align wholly with single market rules, either officially or unofficially, in which case we have lost control, not taken it back one little bit. Option two is that we de-align and increase our standards, as many people say we would, but that will likely mean increasing input costs, making British farming less competitive at home and abroad. Option three, which is most likely, is that we de-align and reduce the standards of our production, meaning that we may be competitive, but we undermine everything that we said we hold dear and everything that our farming community holds dear. I see no alternative to those three options. We need there to be a deal, but the chances are—in fact, the certainty is—that it will not be as good as the one we currently have.
I am glad that the Government are committing to this legislation, which gives some stability and predictability for the next 11 months. While there is a commitment to £3 billion or so a year for the life of this Parliament, we have no clarification about where that money will go. For all its faults, the CAP money that came to this country was restricted for use on agriculture and the environment. If we are making up our own rules, to which there are many advantages, who is to say that the £3 billion that the Government have allotted will not end up being siphoned off to other rural pots? That might be all well and good, but it would reduce the amount of money going into agriculture. In fact, when I questioned the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on that point, he specifically said that he could not promise that all the £3 billion would be spent on agriculture and the environment. I would like the Minister to comment on that. Will all this money be ring-fenced for agriculture spending? There is nothing to force the Government to do that at the moment. It is a likely cut in the money that will go into our agricultural sector.
Over the last 45 years or so that we have been in the European Union and the Common Market before it, we have not had to debate whether it is right to subsidise food, but we do, and if we stop, we will notice. The average spend on food in 1970 was roughly 20% to 25% of household income. Today, it is around 9%. Whether it is right or wrong to subsidise food, we have done so, and choosing not to will have enormous consequences for the lives of every one of our constituents and colossal political consequences. Thinking this through is vital.
We must consider the unintended consequences. As several Members have said, there is an understanding throughout the agricultural community—indeed, across the country—that we should be spending public money on public goods, and I completely support that, but there is great vagueness about that as things stand. For instance, farmers in my community have always opened their doors to local primary schools, so that children can look around, enjoy being on a farm and get a sense of where their food comes from. In the future, will he or she have to formally bid for funding to provide that public good? Are we in danger of getting to a stage where we account for everything and take the heart out of the public role that farmers currently provide willingly and freely?
So many of those public goods are hard to pin down. How do we make a payment to a farmer in Troutbeck, Kentmere, Longsleddale or the Langdale valley to compensate and reward them for the aesthetics of their land—for ensuring that the Lake district continues to be our premier rural tourist destination and the second biggest tourist destination in the country? How do we put a price on that or fund it? These things are massively important and will not be easily done overnight.
We must think about the value that farmers bring to the United Kingdom. In terms of the production of food, we already import nearly 50% of that which we eat. It is so important that we maintain at least what we currently produce and preferably expand our production. Farmers also maintain rare and natural habitats, promote biodiversity and look after our rich heritage landscapes, which underpin our tourism industry, worth £3 billion a year to the Cumbrian economy and providing 60,000 jobs. What about the water management work in the uplands, protecting the towns and villages from flooding? All those things are massively important, and we will have nobody to deliver the environmental goods that we so desperately need if there is nobody working in the farming industry—especially in the uplands—at the end of the seven-year transition period. If we care about the environment, we care about protecting the livelihoods of those people who are there as our partners to protect our environment.
That is why I am so concerned about the Government’s plan to start phasing out basic payments from next January, which make up 85% of livestock farm incomes in this country. That is a certainty; it is what they face. It is, if you like, a seven-year notice to quit. For all the benefits that I believe and hope environmental land management schemes will bring, they will not be available to everyone until 2028. That is seven years during which British farming has to hang in the balance. Many farmers will either choose to leave the industry before it gets bad or will go under because it has got bad. If we care about our environment and protecting the public goods that farmers bring to this country, we must do the right thing—I challenge the Minister to do this—and agree not to phase out the BPS until 2028 for anyone until ELMS are available for everyone.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who speaks passionately for his constituents. He talked about the importance of farming to his constituency and the high-quality products that his farmers produce. My farmers in Strangford produce equally high-quality food that goes all over the world. One example is a milk product that goes to Lakeland Dairies and then travels as far as China. The former International Trade Secretary helped to secure a contract with the Chinese authorities worth £250 million over five years for that product. That high-quality produce made in my constituency is so important.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend accept that, while it is important that any payment system to farmers be directed towards protecting the rural environment, it is equally important that there should be no disincentive to produce high-quality food?

Jim Shannon: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and agree wholeheartedly with him.
Direct payments have made some really important environmental projects happen across Northern Ireland—projects that probably would never have seen the light of day and that tie into the Government’s policies on the environment and climate change. As I said to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) earlier, it is not possible to stop those environmental schemes, especially where tree-planting is involved, because it is important that a number of organisations continue that work over time. The National Trust has made a commitment to plant trees in 500 of the properties for which it has responsibility. The Ulster Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union are encouraging their members to do likewise. It is vital to ensure that those schemes continue. We cannot remove a tree-planting scheme and turn the land back to agricultural land; it is not possible.

Ben Lake: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Surely this underlines the importance of ensuring that we get things right now, because as he just outlined, it is not easy to make up for any mistakes that are made.

Jim Shannon: Absolutely. The Government and the Minister have ensured today that the regional Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are part of this project together. It is my hope that, under this Bill as it is coming forward, direct payments can continue. I would like them to continue long beyond that, but this process moves us towards where we need to be.
There is a very important point for Northern Ireland. The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), referred to this earlier, and I want to conclude with this comment. In Northern Ireland, we have a history and a tradition of small farms. My farm —the farm we have in our family—is only 62 acres. Farms are getting bigger now because they have to do so to move forward, but I think it is really important that this direct payment scheme enables small farms to be viable and makes them sustainable for the years to come. Many, myself included, probably across all of Northern Ireland, were reared on a farm of 60 or 70 acres, with their children going to school, and their whole life was sustained on that. It is really important for the future that Northern Ireland and those small farms can be sustained, be viable and have a future. We wish to have that future within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We do not want to be any different; we want to be treated the same in Greyabbey, where I live, as in Gloucester or anywhere else.

Neil Parish: It is a great pleasure to speak on Third Reading, and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), including to raise some of the points that he made. A point made by those all across the House is that this is a continuity Bill that we very much welcome to keep the payments going as they are. However, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) made the point for the Opposition that the last Agriculture Bill was in the 1940s, after the war, when we were looking to increase the production of food. Later we went into the common agricultural  policy, which spent all of its life increasing production across the whole of the European Union until we got to the 1980s, when we had milk quotas and all sorts of restrictions to try to limit production, and so on. We have seen a whole period of agriculture and food production that has very much been linked to production.
I very much want to raise this point: as we move forward not only with this continuity Bill but with the new Agriculture Bill, we can actually take forward production and enhance the environment at the same time. I have made this point in this House so many times. The countryside we see across the whole of the four nations of the United Kingdom is not there just as God provided it, but is a managed landscape. It is managed by farmers. That is why we can have production, but also have a great environment.
As we talk about carbon and about growing trees, we sometimes forget about the amount of carbon that permanent pasture holds in the ground. If we have permanent pasture, we as humans—I do not want to be too facetious here—cannot actually eat grass, so we do need livestock and red meat production. We also need to look at varieties, species and rare breeds to make sure that we can have a very diverse agriculture in the future.
As has been said, I think there is much to be done, and sometimes we do not realise the enormous nature of what we face. Before I got to this House, I tried to make my living as a farmer. For the whole of our lives, farming policy has been dominated by the common agricultural policy, with 28 countries of the European Union wanting different forms of crops and different types of agriculture. Even if we take sheep production, which across the four nations of this country is very much an extensive form of production, we can see in France that it is a much more intensive form of production. Farmers in France produce their sheep in a much more intensive way, whereas for us it is grassland production, and I think grassland beef and sheep are going to be very important in the future market.
The hon. Member for Strangford raised a point about smaller farmers and family farms. That is where we have to be careful to say that having good-quality, high-welfare, intensive production is not all wrong. We very often say that we have some of the best poultry units in the world, but that is intensive production. As the shadow Secretary of State said, if we compare that with the production that takes place in America, we see that the density of population of chickens is two or three times that of our own, and we see the use of antibiotics in the water as a precautionary mechanism, which we have not used now for many years.
We have spent a lot of time in this country creating agricultural production that is welfare-friendly, reducing antibiotics and making sure that we can deliver high-quality production. What we do not want to see in any future agriculture Bill or certainly in any new trade deal is those high standards of welfare being watered down, including—dare I say—in any mechanism to get a trade deal across the Atlantic. Therefore, it is absolutely key, as we move not only to the continuity of payments Bill but to the new Agriculture Bill, that we do not take our eye off the fact that we need a good trade deal. The point has been raised that, while we are talking about the continuity of payments this afternoon, many farmers out there, especially in the poultry sector, do not actually receive any payments at all. They are very keen on the trade deal that will take place to make sure they can carry on having a living.
As we move forward with the Agriculture Bill and look at the new system of payment, it is important that we in this House do not actually put farmers out of business. We want to make sure that we enhance farming; make sure that farmers can then deliver good-quality agricultural production and can afford to remain in business; and very much make sure that we can deliver the agriculture that we need.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

UK Telecommunications

Dominic Raab: Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to repeat the statement by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in the other place on the security of the telecoms supply chain.
This Government are committed to securing nationwide coverage of gigabit-capable broadband by 2025, because we know the benefits that world-class connectivity can bring—from empowering rural businesses to enabling closer relationships for the socially isolated and new possibilities for our manufacturing and transport industries. We are removing the barriers to faster network deployment, and we have committed £5 billion of new public funding to ensure that no area is left behind. It is of course essential that these new networks are secure and resilient; that is why the Government have undertaken a comprehensive review of the supply arrangements for 5G and full-fibre networks.
The telecoms supply chain review laid before this House in July underlined the range and nature of the risks facing our critical digital infrastructure, from espionage and sabotage to destructive cyber-attacks. We have looked at the issue of how to maintain network security and resilience over many months and in great technical detail; we would never take decisions that threaten our national security or the security of our Five Eyes partners.
As a result, the technical and security analysis undertaken by GCHQ’s National Cyber Security Centre is central to the conclusions of the review. Thanks to its analysis we have the most detailed study of what is needed to protect 5G anywhere in the world, and because of the work of the Huawei cyber-security evaluation centre oversight board, established by the NCSC, we know more about Huawei and the risks it poses than any other country in the world.
We are now taking forward the review’s recommendations in three areas. First, in terms of world-leading regulation, we are establishing one of the strongest regimes for telecoms security in the world, a regime that will raise security standards across all the UK’s telecoms operators and the vendors that supply them. At the heart of the new regime, the NCSC’s new telecoms security requirements guidance will provide clarity to industry on what is expected in terms of network security. The TSRs will raise the height of the security bar and set out tough new standards to be met in the design and operation of the UK’s telecoms networks. The Government intend to legislate at the earliest opportunity to introduce a new, comprehensive telecoms security regime to be overseen by the regulator, Ofcom, and Government.
Secondly, the review also underlined the need for the UK to improve its diversity in the supply of equipment to telecoms networks. Currently, the UK faces a choice of only three major players to supply key parts of our telecom networks, and this has implications for the security and resilience of those networks, as well as for future innovation and market capacity. It is a market failure that must be addressed. The Government are developing an ambitious strategy to help diversify the supply chain, and this will entail the deployment of all the tools at the Government’s disposal, including funding.  We will do three things simultaneously: we will seek to attract established vendors who are not present in the UK to our country; we will support the emergence of new, disruptive entrants to the supply chain; and we will promote the adoption of open, interoperable standards that will reduce barriers to entry.
The UK’s operators are leading the world in the adoption of new, innovative approaches to expanding the supply chain, and the Government will work with industry to seize these opportunities. We will also partner with like-minded countries to diversify the telecoms market, because it is essential that we are never again in the position of having such limited choices when deploying such important new technologies.
The third area covered by the review was how to treat vendors who pose greater security and resilience risks to UK telecoms, and I know that the House has a particular interest in this area, so I will cover the recommendation in detail. The risks identified may arise from technical deficiencies or considerations relating to the ownership and operating location of the vendor. As hon. Members may recall, the Government informed the House in July that they were not in a position to announce a decision on this aspect of the review. We have now completed our consideration of all the information and analysis from the NCSC, industry and our international partners, and today I am able to announce the final conclusions of the telecoms supply chain review in relation to high-risk vendors.
In order to assess a vendor as high-risk, the review recommends that a set of objective factors are taken into account. These include the strategic position or scale of the vendor in the UK network; the strategic position or scale of the vendor in other telecoms networks, particularly if the vendor is new to the UK market; the quality and transparency of the vendor’s engineering practices and cyber-security controls; the vendor’s resilience both in technical terms but also in relation to the continuity of supply to UK operators; the domestic security laws in the jurisdiction where the vendor is based, and the risk of external direction that conflicts with UK law; the relationship between the vendor and the vendor’s domestic state apparatus; and, finally, the availability of offensive cyber-capability by that domestic state apparatus or associated actors that might be used to target UK interests.
To ensure the security of 5G and full-fibre networks it is both necessary and proportionate to place tight restrictions on the presence of any companies identified as high-risk. The debate is not just about the core and the edge of networks, nor is it just about trusted and untrusted vendors. The threats to our networks are many and varied, whether from cyber-criminals or state-sponsored, malicious cyber-activity. The most serious recent attack on UK telecoms has come from Russia, and there is no Russian equipment in our networks. The reality is that these are highly complicated networks, relying on global supply chains where some limited measure of vulnerability is almost inevitable. The critical security question is how to mitigate such vulnerabilities and stop them damaging the British people and our economy.
For 5G and full-fibre networks, the review concluded that, based on the current position of the UK market, high-risk vendors should be excluded from all safety- related and safety-critical networks in critical national  infrastructure; excluded from security-critical network functions; limited to a minority presence in other network functions up to a cap of 35%; and subjected to tight restrictions, including exclusions from sensitive geographic locations. These new controls are also contingent on an NCSC-approved risk mitigation strategy for any operator who uses such a vendor.
We will legislate at the earliest opportunity to limit and control the presence of high-risk vendors in the UK network, and to allow us to respond as technology changes. Over time, our intention is for the market share of high-risk vendors to reduce as market diversification takes place, and I want to be clear that nothing in the review affects this country’s ability to share highly sensitive intelligence data over highly secure networks, both within the UK and with our partners, including the Five Eyes. GCHQ has categorically confirmed that how we construct our 5G and full-fibre public telecoms networks has nothing to do with how we share classified data, and the UK’s technical security experts have agreed that the new controls on high-risk vendors are completely consistent with the UK’s security needs.
In response to the review’s conclusions on high-risk vendors, the Government have asked the NCSC to produce guidance for industry. This guidance was published earlier today on its website. The NCSC has helped operators manage the use of vendors that pose a greater national security risk, such as Huawei and ZTE, for many years. This new guidance will include how it determines whether a vendor is high-risk, the precise restrictions it advises should be applied to high-risk vendors in the UK’s 5G and full-fibre networks, and what mitigation measures operators should take if using high-risk vendors.
As with other advice from the NCSC on cyber-security matters, this advice will be in the form of guidance. The Government expect UK telecoms operators to give due consideration to this advice, as they do with all their interactions with the NCSC. I hope the whole House will agree that if we are to achieve our digital connectivity ambitions, it is imperative that we can trust the safety and security of our telecoms networks. Risk cannot be eliminated in telecoms, but it is the job of Government, Ofcom and industry to work together to ensure that we reduce our vulnerabilities and mitigate the risks.
The Government’s position on high-risk vendors marks a major change in the UK’s approach, and when taken together with the tough new security standards that will apply to operators, this approach will substantially improve the security and resilience of the UK’s telecoms networks, which are a critical part of our national infrastructure. It reflects the maturity of the UK’s market and our world-leading cyber-security expertise, and follows a rigorous and evidenced-based review. It is the right decision for the UK’s specific circumstances.
The future of our digital economy depends on having trust in its safety and security, and if we are to encourage the take-up of new technologies that will transform our lives for the better, we need to have the right measures in place. That is what this new framework will deliver, and I commend this statement to the House.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it.
I am pleased that the Government have finally set out the conclusions of the telecoms supply chain review in relation to high-risk offenders after far too long a period of dither and delay. As the Intelligence and Security Committee made clear in July of last year, this debate has been unnecessarily protracted and damaging. A decision was required urgently so that everyone concerned can move forward. Our telecoms sector, businesses and households need clarity and certainty to move forward; leaks, rumour and confusion on this simply cannot continue.
The safety and security of our critical national infra- structure is crucial. Robert Hannigan, the former head of GCHQ, has said that decisions about providers should be made on
“technical expertise and rational assessment of risk”,
and I agree. It is for the Government to consider the best expert security advice they are given, and act upon it. Ministers should have robustly investigated the risk posed to our critical national infrastructure. I appreciate the confidentiality of National Security Council meetings, but I hope the Foreign Secretary can provide a firm assurance that that is the case.
Guarantees about the safety and security of the network going forward are now absolutely crucial if Huawei is to be involved in building the 5G network. It is for Ministers to make decisions in our national interest now and going forward, and never to be held hostage by shifting transatlantic geopolitics. A rush by the Government to throw themselves into the arms of President Trump to secure a trade deal must not govern everything they do. There is a wider point here. As we assess potential risks to our critical national infrastructure, whether from Huawei or anywhere else, we should ensure that the UK network is constructed in such a way that it is in the best possible condition to withstand attacks, wherever they come from. Resilience in the network is essential, irrespective of this decision or decisions about any other 5G provider. I hope the Foreign Secretary will provide reassurance on that.
Huawei is already embedded in the 4G network, but there is a wider question. After a decade of successive Conservative Governments, we do not have our own capacity to secure our critical national infrastructure and security, rather than relying on other countries. As I think the Foreign Secretary conceded, the UK has been left to choose between just three 5G vendors. What will the Government do to support local manufacturing and our own tech sector in growing businesses that can secure our critical national infrastructure? I have heard his words today about market diversification, but they are not enough. The Government need to act.
5G will have an extraordinary impact on our day-to-day lives. It is transformational, with faster data speeds, higher capacity and faster responsiveness. The majority of our constituents now have access to a large number of smart devices. Every year that number is growing, and the 5G network will have the advantage of being able to cope with that growing capacity. 5G will shape the economy of the future. Innovative technologies of the future rely on its development, and it must progress speedily.
The Government’s original announcement that the UK would be a global leader in 5G was back in 2017. The Government also set a target of the majority of the population being covered by a 5G signal by 2027. In his  statement, the Foreign Secretary committed to securing national coverage of gigabit-capable broadband by 2025. Those targets have to be met. The UK is already way too far behind in its digital infrastructure, and we need to act fast. In September 2019, about 10% of premises in the UK—3 million premises— had access to full fibre. In France, 38% of households have access. In Spain, it is 77%. In Portugal, it is 70%. It is simply not good enough. It is letting all our constituents and businesses down, and the Government have to do more.
Moving forward, I would be grateful if the Foreign Secretary responded to the following points. Given the concerns expressed by our Five Eyes partners, if Huawei is to be deemed a high-risk vendor, will the Foreign Secretary again be as transparent as he can be and make clear how the decision will not bring about risk to communication channels that are used for intelligence sharing? Will he explain how the controls on how high-risk vendors are deployed will work? How durable is the barrier between core and periphery in the 5G network, and how will that be overseen? He mentioned the Huawei cyber-security evaluation centre oversight board, and more detail on how that will work would be appreciated.
The Intelligence and Security Committee’s statement on 5G suppliers of July last year set out that the Government must assume all worst-case security scenarios and protect the network accordingly. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that such contingency planning is taking place? Finally, will he also confirm when the world-leading regulations he talked about will be brought before the House?
The public deserve a durable, secure and reliable 5G network for the future to ensure that our economy moves forward. The Government’s decision today is a small step in a very long process. They can be assured that we will hold them to account on the delivery of a secure, world-class service for all our constituents.

Lindsay Hoyle: Just before the Foreign Secretary answers, and so that Members know where we are, let me just say that I will be running the statement up to 4 o’clock.

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the considered questions he raises. He is right to do so. We have looked at this issue very carefully. He expressed concern about delay, but I think it was absolutely right that, on such a sensitive decision with such a range of complex considerations, from commercial and infrastructure to security, we took the time to get this right. He called for an objective and rigorous analysis; that is precisely what has gone into this decision through the telecoms supply chain review, the analysis of the National Cyber Security Centre, and the other work that has been done, including by the Huawei cyber security evaluation centre oversight board. As a result, we have a greater level of insight into the challenges and the opportunities relating to 5G—in particular the challenges in relation to high-risk vendors—than any jurisdiction in the world.
The hon. Gentleman asked about intelligence considerations. GCHQ has confirmed categorically that how we construct our 5G and full-fibre public telecoms networks has nothing to do with how we will share classified data. Intelligence sharing will not be put at  risk—and will never be put at risk by this Government. It is worth saying that high-risk vendors never have been, and never will be, in our most sensitive networks. He will have heard the public remarks by Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, who said that he has no reason to think the UK’s intelligence-sharing relationship with the US will be impacted, and that the Five Eyes intelligence relationship was the strongest they have ever seen.
The hon. Gentleman asked a range of other questions. The reality is that the decision we are taking today allows us to build on what will be one of the toughest regimes in the world, protecting, and providing the right balance on the protection of, our 5G infrastructure. As I set out in the statement, the Government recognise the imperative to diversify supply. That will involve UK operators making sure that more challengers can come into the market place. It could well involve—this is something we will want to look at—international co-operation with like-minded, close partners, so that we avoid ever having that shortfall of competition and diversity of supply in this country.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the ambitious delivery of the 5G network and full-fibre broadband. That is precisely why we had to undertake rigorous analysis and take the time to get the decision right, and why it is so important to take the right decision, which is what the Government are doing today.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about enforcement. The initial approach will be through guidance, as I explained in my statement. We are committed to bringing forward legislation as soon as possible, but we will make sure we have the robust enforcement to go with the rigorous regime that I set out.

Theresa May: I commend the Government for taking a decision that protects our national security but also recognises the interests of our economy. That is right for the UK, because it recognises the construction of our networks and our capabilities, and gives us the toughest regime in the world. My right hon. Friend has already referenced the fact that we never have had, and never will have, high-risk vendors in our most sensitive networks, and the fact that this decision has no effect on our ability to share intelligence with our allies. My right hon. Friend also referenced the current market failure. He set out the steps the UK Government will take to rectify that. Does he agree that it is essential that our Five Eyes partners—all our Five Eyes allies—be willing to work with us and other like-minded countries to ensure the market diversification that is in all our interests in the long term?

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the assiduous and rigorous work done under her leadership and by her Government, which has made possible the decision that we make today. I can confirm that, in her words, there will be no impact on intelligence. We seek to continue to work with the Five Eyes on intelligence; indeed, we want to strengthen that relationship as we depart from the EU. Co-operation should also expand in relation to dealing with the shortfall in, and the need to improve diversity of, supply in the telecoms network.

John Nicolson: The Conservative party likes to brand itself as the party of security, but many will think that this decision is  born out of weakness. It has come about as a result of short-termism and decades of under-investment. The Prime Minister has gone for the cheapest, least secure option, but it does not take a genius to work out why Huawei is so competitive in cost. It is the Chinese Communist party branded as a company, and the Conservative Government have chosen low cost over security. 5G has been described as the central nervous system of a modern society, and every citizen wants to know whether the state itself can be undermined by the decision that the Government have made. But let us be in no doubt: 5G infrastructure from China is not safe. Under Chinese law, every Chinese company is mandated to give whatever help it is asked to give to the Chinese intelligence services, and in secret. That alone should have been enough for the Prime Minister to decide against allowing the company access.
The Secretary of State has said that the company will be limited to 35% market share in the periphery of the 5G network and will be banned from core functions, but anyone who understands 5G will know that that is not how it works. Installing masts, for instance, may seem innocuous, but each antenna has software, which is remotely updatable, and the so-called peripheral access network can communicate. It can contain malware, which these days is tiny and hard to detect. There is a very good reason why countries such as Australia and New Zealand have chosen not to let the company into their markets. I suspect history will judge that their Governments showed more wisdom at a critical time.
The Government have made a choice: low cost over security. It is the wrong choice, and surely the Foreign Secretary must realise that future generations may come to judge his decision harshly.

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman questioned the rigour of the decision, but as I set out in my statement, it follows—in fairness to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), he acknowledged this—what has been a very thorough and extended assessment, including the telecoms supply chain review and the analysis on the security side by the National Cyber Security Centre. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) is at odds with all of that analysis, including that provided by the intelligence agencies to the Government. He mentioned some countries that have taken a different decision, but as far as I am aware, New Zealand has not taken the decision that he describes. I am afraid that he is wrong on that count. If he is calling for an outright ban he should say so, and he should also address square on the fact that the analysis that we have received shows that that would not be an effective, targeted or forensic way to address the security concerns rightly identified by the review that we conducted. It would not remove Chinese production from the UK telecoms supply. It would reduce competition, which he suggested is part of the problem, and that would make things worse. It would significantly increase the costs for industry and would delay the roll-out of 5G. On all counts, I say respectfully that he has got his analysis wrong.

Julian Lewis: Do the Government accept something that I had difficulty getting their predecessor to accept—that Huawei should not be regarded as a private company because it is intimately linked with the Chinese communist state and  its deeply hostile intelligence agencies? If they do accept that, as they should, are they confident that the safeguards that will be put in place will be sufficient to guard us against a deeply hostile intelligence agency, such as he implied in his statement we needed to do in relation to Russia ?

Dominic Raab: As I set out in my statement, we have been very clear that the relationship between any private business and a Government or state operator has been at the centre of the analysis that we and that the National Cyber Security Centre have conducted. Based on the distinction between the centre or core and the periphery or edge, the different restrictions that can be made on access, and the 35% cap on accessing the periphery, I am confident that we can provide my right hon. Friend with precisely the reassurance that he asks for.

Kevan Jones: I welcome the statement and, as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee in the last Parliament, I can say that I have seen nothing that means that this decision will compromise our Five Eyes relationship, or that the potential risk of including Huawei in the 5G network cannot be mitigated. The Foreign Secretary refers to market failure; this is not market failure. The Chinese Government, through Huawei, have adopted a deliberate policy of dominating the market by billions of pounds of investment in R&D and the acquisition of related activities. Can the Foreign Secretary outline how much the Government are proposing to put into R&D in this sector, and will there be a ban on Chinese companies acquiring UK companies that are developing technologies in the sector?

Dominic Raab: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his positive remarks. We are making sure that we produce legislation as soon as possible that can deal with the various enforcement mechanisms and requirements he mentions. He referred to Huawei and the Chinese investment; the critical question for us is what we do, so we are taking the measures now in relation to guidance, and as soon as is practical in relation to legislation. There is a medium-term piece of work that we need to do to look at the health of the telecoms market and make sure that, both in terms of the domestic measures we take—legislative, investment and otherwise—and the international partnerships that we nurture, we do not end up in that situation again with any other critical piece of telecoms, let alone wider national, infrastructure.

David Davis: I will answer the Foreign Secretary’s question to the Scottish National party spokesman: yes, I do think Huawei should be banned from our networks. It was founded by a member of the People’s Liberation Army. Even if it were not an arm of the Chinese Government, the 2017 law requires that it take instruction from the Chinese intelligence agency. In the future, the size and complexity of the problem we are trying to protect against will be enormous. Huawei alone—forget the rest of China—has tens of thousands of researchers working on this, and I am afraid that the only way to protect our safety is to ban it.

Dominic Raab: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s scrutiny, as ever. I am afraid I disagree with him because I and the Government do not believe—and, critically,  the range of analysis that we have had leading into the decision does not back up—the suggestion that an outright ban would be a targeted way of dealing with the legitimate security concerns that we share right across the House and want to address; nor has he, or anyone else who has called for an outright ban, addressed the wider cost, delays and the impact that it would have both on the telecoms sector and, in particular, the roll-out of 5G.

Chi Onwurah: This statement is a mess, but it is perhaps an inevitable mess, given the Government’s lack of investment in our infrastructure and strategic engineering capability, and their short-term, hands-off, cost-only approach to our digital future. Every generation of telecoms technology is the platform for the next, so will he guarantee specifically that every Huawei box will meet interoperability standards so that it can be swapped out for another vendor when one comes along? And what specifically—not in generalisations—is he doing to enable a British-based manufacturer of telecoms equipment so that we are not in this position again?

Dominic Raab: On the enforcement side, the first thing that the Government will do is come up with the guidance and requirements for the industry, which I am sure that it will want to comply with. That will be followed very swiftly by legislation to make sure that we have legally binding, thorough, consistent and rigorous enforcement of all the different requirements. The hon. Lady is right to talk more broadly about not just defending against high-risk vendors but building up a wider, more diverse supply of UK-based operators. That obviously requires fiscal measures, international co-operation with our partners and a range of other regulatory considerations. All those are going to be looked at by the Government.

Penny Mordaunt: I understand the restriction of high-risk vendors to non-core, but does my right hon. Friend agree that excluding high-risk vendors from any provision is one way that we can discourage companies and states that do not operate under international norms and business standards? That is why this decision is regrettable. Does he agree that this country must never find itself in this position again?

Dominic Raab: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. I agree with the second part of her question, and I have laid out at length the legal, regulatory and fiscal measures that the Government will consider taking to prevent this from happening. I and the Government do not believe that an outright ban would address in a targeted way people’s legitimate security concerns about high-risk vendors. It would be a very blunt tool to address a very specific problem.

Daisy Cooper: The Government make a distinction between the core and the periphery, but many people have made the point that as the network continues to integrate, that distinction will disappear. What reassurances can the Secretary of State provide on that? The periphery, where Huawei will be committed to operate, includes radio masts that are used for emergency services, search and rescue and  distress signals, and by 100 community RAYNET—Radio Amateurs’ Emergency Network—organisations. What assurances can he provide on that?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Lady for those good, focused questions. The core of the network is the nerve centre for our national telecommunications network. It is for the most sensitive functions, relating to things like protecting sensitive data, and that is how we can identify very clearly the specific requirements needed to protect them. The access network—the periphery or the edge, as it is called—is the infrastructure connecting customer devices and equipment to mobile phone masts, transport and transmission networks. There is a clear distinction. She is right to say that technology is fluid and this may change over time, but we are very clear on the functions that we have identified and the way that we are going to protect them.

Iain Duncan Smith: I say to my right hon. Friend that I am deeply disappointed by this decision. I have spoken at length to security officials, who will always say that defending in cyber-security is a game of catch-up—always catching up with the next algorithm change, and we can never guarantee that we spot it sometimes until too late. The reality of the 5G network is that it is fundamentally different. There will be less and less centralised function with more and more going to the periphery, which is exactly where Huawei will be. Given that he did not mention China as a threat to us in cyber-security—he mentioned only Russia—does he now believe that China is a threat to us in cyber-security; as he takes on those threats to us, does he think that he will now drive Huawei out of our future systems progressively, as quickly as he can?

Dominic Raab: The Government and the various statements that have been made in relation to the security risks have consistently called out China for cyber-attacks and other nefarious ways in which they risk—[Interruption.] I am doing it now, so hopefully my right hon. Friend will be reassured. We are squarely focused on that, but in relation to 5G it is important to assess very specifically, in a targeted way, the nature of the risk and make sure that we have the right tools to deal with that risk. As I said in an earlier answer, the risk of an outright ban is that it is a very blunt tool to deal with a very specific problem, but he is right to say that we have to be very mindful as technology develops in the future.

Pat McFadden: In the discussions with the United States over the Huawei decision, did the US Administration make any linkage between our decision and any potential trade deal between the UK and the US?

Dominic Raab: I have never had any conversation where that linkage has been made, and nor am I aware of any.

Richard Graham: I welcome this statement, which balances the advantages of world-class telecoms technology with the need to manage complex challenges from high-risk vendors, and I think the Government’s acceptance of the restrictions and regulations proposed by the National Cyber Security Centre should give us all confidence. Does my right hon. Friend agree  that, contrary to some media reporting, rather than this decision setting us on a collision course with the US, in fact the UK will be working very closely with US and other Five Eyes partners to develop alternative technologies over the next few years?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is right about the challenge we face, but there is also an opportunity, specifically for, but not limited to, the Five Eyes partners, to look at this and see what challenges we face in the future—not just now—and to work collaboratively with business and within government to make sure we never find ourselves in this position again.

Sammy Wilson: It was probably inevitable that this decision would be made, given the Government’s desire—rightly—to roll out 5G and broadband across the UK. The Secretary of State has given assurances today that he will try to ensure that in the future we are not as dependent on foreign technology, but in his statement he said that one of the three areas open to him was to reduce barriers to entry. Does this decision not actually create greater barriers to entry, insofar as Huawei will have a stronger grip on the market and economies of scale and so will be able to keep competitors out of the market?

Dominic Raab: If the right hon. Member looks at the range of restrictions—from exclusion at the core through to the 35% cap at the periphery and the specific locations where Huawei will not be allowed access—he will see that we have both struck the right balance in terms of market diversity and protected and provided resilience for the telecoms infrastructure.

Michael Fabricant: Notwithstanding the fact that all our iPhones are manufactured in China by a company associated with Huawei, I want to ask my right hon. Friend about the four 5G networks already under construction in the UK. What action is he taking regarding these existing networks? Will the data being transferred, and where it is being transferred to, be secure in the future? Finally, will the resilience of our 5G networks be maintained?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend makes a good point not just about new entrants to the market but about those with existing stakes in infrastructure. The guidance and legislation will apply to all of them. There will be transitional arrangements to make sure that those already in the marketplace can adjust, but that will have to be reasonably swift so that we also have the assurance we need around security.

Carol Monaghan: I cannot work out whether it is naivety or arrogance that prevents the UK Government from seeing the high risk presented to our national security by Huawei. This is a company financed by the Chinese Communist party, and we are giving it an open door to our security. How can the Secretary of State provide any guarantee of our future security when software can be updated remotely and technology develops daily?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Member is right to point to the fluid nature of technology. We will make sure we have the right regulatory regime. It will be one of the  toughest in the world and, through the technical requirements and guidance, will be able to adapt to any shifts in technology. Inherently technology is fluid, and we will have to keep this under constant review, but we have struck the right balance not just to deal with the security risk we face, which both sides of the House share an interest in addressing, but to make sure we have investment in infrastructure. That is the balance the Government have struck.

Liam Fox: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the high level of anxiety around this decision both here and in the United States. As far as he is able, can he tell us whether in Washington the anxiety is primarily around Britain’s ability to mitigate the risk of Huawei involvement in 5G or about giving a green light to other countries that do not have the same capabilities as the UK?

Dominic Raab: I suspect that my right hon. Friend has had many conversations with our American partners and friends. We are starting in a different place from the US, which does not have Huawei in its existing networks and can use different suppliers, but I can reassure him of two things.
First, we considered all those aspects during the telecoms supply chain review, which constitutes the most detailed and broad analysis that has ever been done in the world. Secondly, on a number of occasions during the decision-making process we asked the United States whether it had an alternative to the use of Huawei that would work for the United Kingdom, and none of our conversations in Silicon valley or anywhere else identified a solution that would work for the UK.

Matt Western: The Secretary of State will be aware that many countries, such as the United States, Australia, India and, I think, Japan, have banned Huawei, but is he also aware that Vietnam is developing its own network? How is it that this country cannot do the same?

Dominic Raab: I do not think there is any reason why we cannot, but we must provide the necessary investment and the right market structure and level playing field. We must also engage in some of the international relations, networks and partnerships that can assure us of either a home-grown alternative for the future, or one that is worked out with our most highly trusted partners.

Bob Seely: I welcome much of the telecoms review, and I thank my right hon. Friend for the manner in which he is speaking now, but I still think that Members in all parts of the House will have significant problems with high-risk vendors, partly because of years of under-communication about this issue on the part of Governments. Just for now, however, can my right hon. Friend confirm that Parliament will be able to debate an agreed definition of high-risk and non-high-risk vendors, that Parliament will be able to agree which high-risk vendors we want in the system and what the percentage should be—35% seems an awful lot—and that we will be able to work out how to encourage trusted vendors to compete with high-risk vendors in non-core-periphery elements, so that we can build non-trusted vendors out of the system, not into it?

Dominic Raab: We have a definition of “high-risk vendor”, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right is to suggest that there will be ample parliamentary opportunity to debate and define when we introduce the legislation, which will be done as soon as possible.

Barry Sheerman: I have some sympathy for the Secretary of State, because this is a highly complex area, and I shall certainly want to go away and study his statement in some depth— as will many of our partners and many of the nations with which we trade regularly—but will he answer one question? Much of the emphasis in his remarks has been on national security, and I understand that, but has he talked to people in universities? Has he talked to entrepreneurs, inventors and designers, all of whom know that intellectual property is stolen by the Chinese every time they put it on the internet? They know that the Chinese cannot be trusted, but we would give the Chinese greater access to university research and the businesses that entrepreneurs are setting up. All those people believe that they will lose their intellectual property. Has the Secretary of State thought of that?

Dominic Raab: The telecoms supply chain review took extensive soundings and advice from all the sectors that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Let me also say that a robust approach to intellectual property enforcement is in no way inconsistent or in conflict with the crucial decision that we have had to take, and have rightly taken today.

Thomas Tugendhat: My right hon. Friend will have heard the views of the whole House yesterday following an urgent question on this very subject, and it is very hard for me to welcome his statement, but I recognise the position at which he has arrived, given the position with which he began.
Perhaps I can just ask for a little clarity. My right hon. Friend talks about 35%. Is that 35% of the new 5G market, in which case it is an increase, or it 35% of the existing market, in which case it is a huge decrease from where Huawei is now? What we really want to see is a ban, a cap and a cut.

Dominic Raab: I thank the Chair of the Select Committee—[Interruption.] I am sorry; that may have been premature. I appreciate that there are one or two other candidates who spoke earlier, and I hope that they will forgive me.
The 35% is set out very clearly in the papers. I understand that, effectively, it would be roughly equivalent to the existing market share, but of course it could be changed over time. It is linked with the broader, medium-term challenge that we face, which is to diversify the supply of home-grown and other highly trusted companies —if I can put it that way—from other countries and other jurisdictions. That will ensure that we have a far more diverse supply for telecoms and technology which will contribute to vital national infrastructure in the future.

Mark Hendrick: I congratulate the Government on a decision that I believe will greatly enhance the digital infrastructure of the UK without compromising the security of our communications  networks. I believe that 5G networks will be greatly beneficial to businesses and individuals and that this will prevent this country from being dragged into a Donald Trump-inspired trade war with China.

Dominic Raab: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman’s question was, but we are taking the right decision based on a whole range of technical, commercial and security considerations for this country. Of course we will need to go out and explain our position to all our different partners, but I think that, particularly as we are leaving the EU, it is right that the United Kingdom does the right thing for the people of this country, that we do it in the right way and that we have enough self-belief and the courage of our convictions to stand up and take those decisions. That is what this Government are doing today.

Crispin Blunt: May I commend the serious and sober tone in which the Foreign Secretary has approached this issue? I also commend the enormous amount of work that must have been done by the intelligence agencies to re-examine what I understood was the preliminary position arrived at under the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). It ought to give us comfort that this decision has been properly examined, but the only body in this House that can properly look at this on the basis of all the evidence is the Intelligence and Security Committee. If that Committee, when it is formed, seeks to examine this decision, may I request my right hon. Friend and the Government to allow it to look at it, within all the restrictions that apply? Finally, in relation to the markets of China, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Chinese that we expect reciprocity?

Dominic Raab: I am not quite sure which Select Committee my hon. Friend is going for now, but in any event, I can reassure the House that full scrutiny among all Select Committees will be duly provided. He makes some important points about the nature of our relationship with China and the importance of it engaging in good faith when it has access to our market, even though we are rightly taking the measures that I have described to protect any vulnerabilities. He makes an important point about the bilateral relationship with China.

Jonathan Edwards: Industry experts indicate that the distinction between the periphery and the core will gradually become redundant. If that is correct, how will the 35% rule that the Secretary of State has announced today work over time?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman is right. I mentioned the approach that the Government will take in relation to the regulatory approach, but the figure of 35%, which will be set down in law, will be able to be amended and revised, so the Government will always have the tools to allow us flexibility to address the risks to 5G and to our infrastructure more generally.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Imran Ahmad Khan.

Imran Nasir Ahmad Khan: I was going to ask a question that has now been asked by another hon. Member.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call David Morris.

David Morris: When we go to China, we are told by the Foreign Office that if we take a phone with us, it should be a burner phone that we can get rid of afterwards, because it will be hacked. We are also told to do that by the embassy in China. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we are utilising Huawei’s technology but not its services, whether clandestine or otherwise?

Dominic Raab: I am not quite sure what clandestine services my hon. Friend is referring to, but I can reassure him that there is nothing further than the investment that would be accepted, as laid out in the statement I have made.

Ronnie Cowan: After 35 years of working in IT and writing and reading many tenders for telecommunications systems, I would never in my life consider a vendor that I judged to be high risk. Why are the Government doing this? Does the Secretary of State really think that the resilience and integrity of UK telecoms is safe? He has said in his statement that
“risk cannot be eliminated in telecoms”,
but we could at least try to mitigate it.

Dominic Raab: That is precisely what I set out in my statement.

Jeremy Wright: The disadvantage that the House faces this afternoon is that the most important evidence in helping the Government to make these decisions comes from the intelligence agencies, yet almost all Members of the House will not see that evidence. As it happens, I have seen it—or at least a version of it—and I happen to think that the Government are making the right judgment on a difficult subject. Is it not right, however, that we should not allow ourselves, either in this place or in Government, to be distracted by one single supplier? We should not forget that there is American IP in Chinese components, and Chinese components in products sold by vendors who are not Chinese. The most important thing is to protect our supply network from vendors, whoever they may be, in order to enhance our security.

Dominic Raab: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point about interoperability that was lost on some of the earlier remarks, and he is right in his assessment. On transparency—I appreciate that these are difficult issues for the House to grapple with—we have put as much into the public domain as possible. The telecoms supply chain review’s final report was published in July 2019, and the National Cyber Security Centre’s analysis is available on its website.

Justin Madders: The Foreign Secretary said that measures will be put in place to protect sensitive intelligence data, and in due course his judgment will be found to be correct or not. Given that he has described Huawei as high-risk, my constituents will rightly be asking what protections are in place for their sensitive data.

Dominic Raab: The crucial reassurance that I can give to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents is that their data will not be at risk at all because of the geared, leveraged and calibrated set of restrictions, including  the exclusion of high-risk vendors from the core functions —the sensitive network operations—and the various other restrictions, including the 35% cap, on operations at the network level. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the package in the round, he will see that it is the right approach to protect not just the network’s resilience, but the integrity of individual data, while also ensuring that we are open for vital investment.

Damian Collins: The Foreign Secretary referenced the oversight board’s work in his statement. He will know that the board said that there are “serious and systematic” cyber-security issues with Huawei’s network in the UK now with “no credible plan” of remedy. Does he agree with the oversight board? Has he seen evidence to suggest there is a plan to put that situation right, or does he believe that it can be managed?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is right to reference the flaws and the criticisms that have been pointed out and made in relation to Huawei, but it is precisely because we have the Huawei cyber-security evaluation centre oversight board that we can get the right balance between acknowledging the risks, acting on them, and ensuring that we can proceed with investment decisions that are in the country’s national interest.

Stewart McDonald: The Foreign Secretary talks about Huawei as though it is some kind of Chinese answer to John Lewis, but this is a Faustian pact with the Chinese Communist party, and he needs to be honest about that. On the regulatory aspect, it strikes me that the Government are getting things the wrong way around. They are going to introduce what he referred to as a robust regime for telecoms regulations, but surely that should come before giving a green light to allowing something as dangerous as Huawei into the 5G network. What if the new regime decides that what the Government have just greenlighted is too dangerous? Is there an opportunity to stop it?

Dominic Raab: With respect, I do not think that anyone has described John Lewis as a high-risk vendor. The reality is that the Government announced last July one of the world’s toughest regimes for telecoms security, so that work is already in train. It will require operators to raise their security standards to combat the range of threats—whether cyber-criminals or state-sponsored attacks—and we will ensure the legislation contains the full panoply not just of powers, but of enforcement mechanisms.

Bernard Jenkin: I cannot say I welcome this decision, but I understand it. However, what harsh and honest lessons will the UK Government take from finding themselves confronted with this dilemma? This Administration and, indeed, the previous Administration inherited the problem from a long way back. Does it not represent a massive strategic national failure and, indeed, a failure of western strategy that the Five Eyes have been left in this position? How will we learn those lessons? Will he set up a post-hoc review?

Dominic Raab: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think I expressed in my statement that this was a failure of the market, but he is also right to say it is a failure of  Government and, indeed, a failure of western Governments. We have set out a whole range of things that we will do—fiscal measures, regulatory measures, international collaboration—to ensure that we never find ourselves in this situation again.

Andrew Griffith: I commend my right hon. Friend for his thoughtful and calibrated proposal. As someone with first-hand experience of building and operating broadband networks at scale, may I ask him to consider phasing the introduction of the share cap over a number of years to allow time for the industry to respond?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend has particular expertise in this area. We can consider the cap and the issue of phasing at the point of legislation, but it is important that we take these measures as swiftly as possible to show we have a decisive fork in the road that is able to meet the challenges of both investment and security.

Steve Brine: The logic of what the Foreign Secretary says about the limited choices is that if he could make this decision on roll-out without Huawei, that is exactly what he would do. As he addresses the domestic telecoms market and the market failure—let us be honest, it is a domestic market failure—will it be possible for us to ease out this high-risk vendor, or will we be in too deep? Is it only for the future that he is addressing that failure?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. No, it would not just be for the future. The reality is that with a 35% cap, which could be changed over time, and with the investment initiatives we need to take in order to diversify supply, we should start to grapple with the domestic challenge as soon as possible—I cannot give him a precise date—as well as considering what we do afterwards in regulatory terms. The reality is that the more trusted home-grown supply we have, the less we will need to rely on high-risk vendors.

James Cartlidge: In debate after debate in this Chamber on the economy, hon. Member after hon. Member rightly laments this country’s long-standing failure to raise its productivity. There are serious security concerns, which my right hon. Friend has addressed pragmatically, but does he agree it is hard to think of a single measure more likely to raise our productivity than the early and comprehensive adoption of 5G?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is right. Those who advocate an outright ban need to come out and defend what that would mean, first, for security—because it would not be a targeted response to the security challenges we face—and, secondly, for investment due to the delayed roll-out of 5G.

Damian Green: The National Cyber Security Centre has today published a document online saying that the reasons behind the 35% limit on Huawei’s involvement in parts of the network are subtle. That is one adjective; another one might be “arbitrary.” Will my right hon. Friend explain the reason for 35%? Over what timescale does he want to drive down that number?

Dominic Raab: My right hon. Friend is right to say it is a balanced consideration, and the two key factors that have informed the 35% figure are the need for diversity of supply in the market and the need to ensure the security of the network. The quicker we can bring more trusted homegrown alternatives into play, the swifter we can review the 35% cap and reach the point at which we reduce our reliance on high-risk vendors. That is the equation we are addressing.

Simon Jupp: Can the Secretary of State confirm that any decision to ban Huawei outright would result in possible trade retaliation by China?

Dominic Raab: There would be that risk, but it is not the basis on which the decision has been made. We have looked at the evidence and consulted partners across the board, and we have come to the right decision for the United Kingdom both on the issue of investment in 5G and, critically, on the right focused approach to protect our infrastructure.

Richard Drax: Bearing in mind that we are under constant cyber-attack by China, I am baffled by this decision. As I understand from all the commentators, it is very hard, or impossible, for 5G to distinguish between core and periphery. If the Government give access to the periphery, China will get to the core. That is what we are hearing. Surely this is a major threat to our security.

Dominic Raab: With respect, I disagree. The core, and certainly at present it is tangible enough to identify, is the nerve centre of the telecommunications network. It is the most sensitive set of functions, such as protecting sensitive data and making sure the network as a whole keeps running. The periphery—the edge, so to speak—includes things like transport and the transmission network, which are important but do not have the same level of critical sensitivity. That is the basis of our decision and our approach today.

Michael Tomlinson: Digital connectivity is vital for my constituency, and for other rural and semi-rural constituencies such as mine. The Foreign Secretary mentioned mitigations. What further reassurances can he give my constituents and our international allies that our digital infrastructure will remain secure and safe?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I can give him and his constituents the reassurance that we have taken the right decision to make sure we can roll out 5G and have our ambitions for levelling up right across the country, at the same time as protecting our infrastructure from the high-level risks where they particularly are targeted and focused.

Jonathan Djanogly: Given what I have heard today, I accept the sense of the Government’s position. However, on drafting a contract with Huawei, would it not make sense, as far as the British public are concerned, that if there were to be a breach of national security, Huawei should pay for the replacement, not the British public?

Dominic Raab: I agree with the spirit with which my hon. Friend spoke. Of course, if there were that kind of breach, it would almost certainly be a criminal offence, not just a contractual issue. What I can reassure him is that the legislation will set out all the recourse that would be had against the operators.

Alun Cairns: For me, there are two key issues: the technology and security challenges, on which my right hon. Friend will have received advice from the UK’s and even the world’s leading authorities; and the political fallout. What assessment have he and the Government made about the impact of this decision on the politics with some of our international partners?

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend for that. We have taken a sensible, sober decision based on rigorous analysis, and we will rightly defend it as such with whoever is interested to know the basis for the decision. Equally, there is an important piece of work to do, as hon. Members have expressed, in relation to making sure that we and other Five Eyes partners do not find ourselves in this position again.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but he must recognise that there are considerable fears about this decision. In order to allay those, will he run a Government information campaign to deal with the technical issues—the oversight by the cybersecurity centre, and the difference between the core and the periphery—and to detail the stringent worldwide regulatory powers he is going to put in place?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend, and we will certainly look at both those points.

Rob Butler: Having heard the considerable concerns both inside and outside this House today, will my right hon. Friend assure me and my constituents of one simple thing: the Government will always prioritise national security and heed the advice of the security services on our critical national infra- structure?

Dominic Raab: I assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely what the Government have done in this decision.

Criminal Law

Nigel Evans: With the permission of the House, we will debate motions 2 and 3 together.

Chris Philp: I beg to move,
That the draft Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 14 October 2019, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Nigel Evans: With this we shall consider the following motion:
That the draft Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 October 2019, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Chris Philp: It has been 47 days since the general election, and these measures deliver on a crucial manifesto commitment. Taken together, they will ensure that the most serious violent and sexual offenders spend two thirds of their sentence in jail, rather than half their sentence, as is currently the case. By making this change, we both protect the public and ensure that justice is better done. We protect the public because while someone is in prison they cannot commit any further offences, and we will be increasing the length of time they spend in prison. Secondly, this change will build public confidence in the justice system in general and the sentencing regime in particular.

Desmond Swayne: Would the public’s confidence not be served if prisoners served the sentence that was delivered in court, rather than this fabrication whereby the sentence is announced and everybody works out on the back of a fag packet what it actually in means for the sentence that will be served? Why go for two thirds, up from a half—why not have the sentence that was delivered in court by a judge served?

Chris Philp: There are provisions, which I shall explain in a moment, to make sure that many of the most dangerous offenders serve all of their sentence in jail, but for many offenders the sentence has two parts: the part served in jail and the part supervised on licence following their release from jail. Together, those two parts make up the sentence. Moving the release point to two thirds for the category of offences we are talking about will make sure that more of an offender’s sentence is served in jail and less of it is supervised under licence. For certain categories of serious offender, as my right hon. Friend mentions, there is a legitimate public expectation that more than half the sentence will be served in prison, rather than automatic release happening at the halfway point. As the Minister responsible for sentencing, I get quite a lot of correspondence from the public and from victims of crime asking why some very serious violent and sexual offenders are released at the halfway point, which is what currently happens.
Let me be clear what this debate will not cover. The regulations do not cover serious terrorist offenders, who will be dealt with separately in a piece of primary legislation that we intend to bring forward shortly to  honour a manifesto commitment. Nor will we cover the wider issues to do with sentencing, which we will consider via a sentencing White Paper and sentencing Bill later this year.

Thomas Tugendhat: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the timetable that he sees going forward. He knows that I have been campaigning hard for Tony’s law and longer sentences, in honour of Tony Hudgell, a child who was brutally attacked by both of his birth parents and left with severe injuries. When does the Minister think his legislative programme might get to that?

Chris Philp: Victims who feel that a sentence is unduly lenient currently have a 28-day period following sentencing to apply under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme to the Attorney General, who can then make a reference to the Court of Appeal. On a review of sentencing more generally, which may well include the tragic case to which my hon. Friend referred, the sentencing White Paper that will come forward a little later this year, followed by a sentencing Bill, will provide my hon. Friend and other colleagues with an opportunity to raise issues that go beyond the matters we are considering today. I will of course listen carefully to this debate, in which colleagues from all parties may raise issues that can feed into the sentencing White Paper.
One topic that the sentencing White Paper will certainly deal with, although we are not dealing with it today, is short custodial sentences, which are not particularly effective at stopping reoffending. The White Paper will address that, and in particular it will make proposals to do more to treat the causes of offending behaviour, particularly drug and alcohol addiction and mental health problems, which are often the cause of high-volume repeat offending. Short custodial sentences do not deal effectively with that cohort of offenders, but that is not the topic of the regulations; it is a matter we will come to in the forthcoming White Paper and sentencing Bill.

Julian Lewis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. May I offer a refinement on the suggestion made by my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne)? We understand why one wants to give prisoners who are serving a sentence an incentive to behave well in jail, but that could be achieved without this upset of the public perception that someone is getting a longer sentence than they are really getting. Prisoners could be given the sentence that they are going to serve, with the expectation that if they misbehave, it can be extended by a certain amount, rather than their being given a sentence that they can reduce by a certain amount if they behave themselves in prison. That would avoid the perception among the public that the Government are trying to con them into believing that the sentences being imposed are more severe than we all know them to be in reality.

Chris Philp: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I should make it clear—I will explain this in a bit more detail in a moment—that the standard determinate sentences under discussion today have an automatic release point. The current release point, at  50% of the sentence, is not contingent on good behaviour; it is automatic. We are proposing to remove that automatic release point to two thirds as a first step, but, of course, there are other things that we could do in the area that he has just mentioned. Examining and investigating the clarity of sentencing decisions and how the public understand them are certainly matters that the sentencing White Paper and sentencing Bill can properly look at, and I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that.
What today’s regulations do is to take a very specific area where we can act quickly and immediately, rather than waiting for the larger and wider piece of work to be done later in the year. Of course, as part of that piece of work, we might well choose to go further than is the case today, but here is an area where we can act quickly and decisively and deliver on a critical manifesto commitment just 47 days after the general election.

Huw Merriman: During the election period, when I was delivering leaflets, a young lady caught up with me and talked to me about her experience at the hands of somebody who had treated her absolutely heinously. She was with her friend, who was a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), and it was her father who was the perpetrator. He was given a sentence of 18 years for those heinous crimes. The two felt that justice had been done until they found out that he would serve only half of that sentence. They told me that that had contributed to them feeling that justice had not been done. The Minister wrote to me very sympathetically when I took up the case. I absolutely support these changes, but can we can have some solidarity in this place for people who do not feel that justice has been served because they have watched their perpetrator serve only half of their sentence?

Chris Philp: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case once again. I completely agree with the sentiment that he expresses. When a perpetrator of a serious offence automatically gets released only halfway through their sentence, victims very often feel that justice has not been done. Today’s regulations are a small first step in addressing the wider problem to which he refers. We can and we will return to the wider question and see whether we can go further via the White Paper and sentencing Bill later this year. This is very much a first step in the direction that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have mentioned.

Alex Chalk: I understand entirely the logic behind these proposals, but what analysis has been made of the impact on the prison population and how many further places, if any, will be required?

Chris Philp: I would expect nothing less from my hon. Friend than a forensic and detailed question. In fact, I do have those figures. Perhaps it would be worth going through the details of how this scheme will operate and the consequential impact on the prison population and other matters. In answering his question, let me start by defining exactly what offences are in the scope of today’s regulations. We are talking about the offences appearing in parts 1 and 2 of schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which could attract a life sentence. They include offences such as rape and grievous bodily harm  with intent. Currently, there are three types of sentence that might be handed down for those offences. The first, which is for the most serious offences, is a life sentence with a tariff—the tariff is the minimum amount the offender will serve, after which they are eligible for release by the Parole Board at its discretion. The second type of sentence—the next most serious—is for offenders deemed by the judge to be dangerous. That is called an extended determinate sentence. For those offences, the prisoner is eligible for release after two thirds of their sentence, subject to Parole Board discretion. After release and after their prison sentence, they are subject to an extended period on licence.
The third type of sentence—the type that we are going to talk about today—is a standard determinate sentence, for which somebody is eligible for automatic release at the halfway point, with no involvement from the Parole Board. Those are the sentences that most concern the Government, and on which we are acting today.
Let me turn to the numbers. In 2018, just under 6,000—5,862 to be precise—sentences were handed down that met the criteria I have just laid out. Some people online have suggested that, mostly, these are extended determinate sentences and that today’s regulations will therefore make very little difference. That is categorically untrue. Of those 5,862 sentences, only 90 were life sentences and 243 were extended determinate sentences, but 4,735—81% of those sentences—were standard determinate sentences with automatic release at the halfway point. The vast majority of those sentences for very serious crimes had automatic release after only half the sentence. Some 84% of rape convictions had a standard determinate sentence. That means that 84% of incarcerated rapists were eligible for automatic release at the halfway point. We take the view that that is simply not right.

Daisy Cooper: The Minister has outlined that this applies to rapists, and to those accused and found guilty of grievous bodily harm.

Chris Philp: GBH with intent.

Daisy Cooper: Yes, GBH with intent—so we are talking about incredibly violent criminals. But the Government’s own assessment of these proposed laws says that they could increase prison overcrowding, introduce significant costs and lead to increased prisoner violence. The gravest risk, however, is that prisoners spend more of their sentence in prison and less time on release with a licence, which could actually lead to an increased risk of reoffending. Although we are all sympathetic to the victims of crime, who may feel like justice has not been done, we absolutely must not introduce an increased risk of violence and reoffending after offenders finish their term. Instead of talking tough on crime, will the Government follow the evidence and do what is necessary to prevent crime and reduce reoffending?

Chris Philp: Ensuring that this cohort of prisoners stays in prison for a bit longer does serve the public interest and public safety, because they cannot commit further offences while they are in prison. Under these measures, they will still spend a third of their sentence on licence. Of course, there is an opportunity for people to take part in rehabilitative activity while they are in prison. There will be an impact on the prison population, which I will outline in a moment, as my hon. Friend the  Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) asked the same question. We are making provisions to ensure that places are available so that meaningful rehabilitative work can take place, but this is about preventing crime by ensuring that serious offenders are in prison for a bit longer, and ensuring that victims’ rights are respected by making sure that the time served in prison better reflects the sentence handed down by the judge.

Gareth Johnson: The Minister is being generous in giving way. I welcome today’s announcement because it injects an element of honesty into our sentencing system, and reduces confusion and frustration among victims. Will he be absolutely categoric that this is part of a process and not an event in itself—that is, will we see further occasions where such measures will be rolled out so that there can be more justice for the victims of crime?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner for victims’ rights and ensuring that justice is done. I can give him the assurance he is asking for. This is just a first step. The sentencing White Paper and Bill later this year will have the scope to go further and take wider action across the sentencing field. I look forward to working with him and other colleagues in this area.

Wera Hobhouse: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Philp: How can I resist an intervention from the hon. Lady?

Wera Hobhouse: I am grateful to the Minister.
It is important that victims get justice, and that it is seen that justice has been done, but the Liberal Democrats worry about the language that is being used, because there is not enough emphasis on rehabilitation. Will the Minister come forward to point out how effective rehabilitation is actually going to work—in addition to tougher sentences, if that has to be the case?

Chris Philp: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Sentencing and more time in prison for serious offenders is very important, for the reasons that other Members have outlined, but rehabilitation is important as well. She will be aware that private community rehabilitation companies did some of that work, and that it is now being brought back in-house to be provided by the National Probation Service. She will be heartened to hear that the probation service and the Prison Service will be receiving significantly extra money in the next financial year, much of which will specifically address the matter of rehabilitation.
Let me outline in more detail exactly what this first step entails. I have defined a cohort of offenders and a cohort of offences. For standard determinate sentence offenders, we intend to apply the later release measure, in order to increase the amount of the sentence served from half to two thirds, where the sentence passed down is seven years or more. That applies to about one third of the 4,735 standard determinate sentences that I referred to earlier, so this measure will apply to 1,450 offenders per year, based on the 2018 figures. To be clear, of the 1,450 offenders affected directly by this measure, 30% were convicted of rape, and a further 30% were convicted of causing grievous bodily harm  with intent—very serious assault. We will make sure that those rapists and serious violent offenders spend two thirds, not half, of their sentence in prison.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham asked about the prison population. These measures will start to bite in about three and a half years’ time, because any sentence in the categories that I have described handed down from 1 April this year onwards will have the later released provision applied, so it will take 50% of three and a half years, minus time on remand—just under three and a half years—for these measures to start affecting the prison population. The impact assessment, which I see that the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has in her hand, shows that as a result of this measure, by March 2024, there will be an uplift in the prison population of 50, but by 2030, there will be 2,000 extra prisoners in the prison estate.
The Government are already taking action to increase the prison estate—action that will include accommodating the extra 2,000 prisoners that this measure will create. We are building 3,500 additional prison places at Glen Parva, Wellingborough and Stocken, and in the 2019 spending review, just a few months ago, the Government committed to building a further 10,000 new prison places. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), is working hard on planning for those extra 10,000 places. In fact—this is very timely—she is at this very moment arriving in the Chamber. She has clearly been busily working on those extra 10,000 places as we have been speaking.

Victoria Prentis: Of course, what really matters to victims is that there is not reoffending, and that we are able to rehabilitate prisoners while they are in prison. The Minister was talking about rapists. Can he assure me that Horizon and Kaizen, the new sex offender training programmes—although they are no longer called that—are actually effective, and that we will have sufficient numbers of staff to deliver them to the new prisoners who will be spending longer inside?

Chris Philp: As always, my hon. Friend raises an extremely pertinent point. I can confirm that these programmes will be a focus both for Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and, of course, for Ministers at the Ministry of Justice. As I said, the Prison Service and the probation service will see significant increases in funding next year as a consequence of the 2019 spending review settlement, and material amounts of that funding will be applied to the programmes that we are providing.
In addition to the extra 10,000 prison places that my hon. Friend the Minister has been working on, we are spending an extra £100 million on prison security, and in the next financial year alone—the one due to start in a few months—we will spend an extra £156 million on prison maintenance. That is on top of the extra 4,581 prison officers who were recruited between October 2016 and September 2019. The Government are acutely conscious that the increase of 2,000 in the prison population needs to be catered for. Plans are in hand to do that, as well as to ensure that appropriate levels of resource are dedicated to rehabilitating those extra prisoners.

Kate Green: I apologise for coming in late, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was at another meeting. What assessment has been made of the likely rates of reoffending among the prisoners who will be released after longer custodial sentences? There is a quite widespread view among penal campaigners that longer custodial sentences will not be as effective at rehabilitation as rehabilitation in the community. In looking at the long-term need for prison places, what assessment have the Government made of reoffending rates among these particular individuals?

Chris Philp: Of course, the longer that is spent in prison, the more opportunity there is to deliver rehabilitative services. If we look at reoffending rates in general, they are worse for people serving short prison sentences, which is why I mentioned the importance of focusing on treatment of mental health and addiction problems as an alternative to short custodial sentences. We do not have precise reoffending figures for the cohort we are discussing today, but for broadly these kinds of offenders serving sentences of four to 10 years, that is the closest proxy I have been able to find. The one-year reoffending rate is about 20% at present, but of course we would like to do more work to reduce that.
The second statutory instrument before the House is a technical one, designed to ensure that consecutive sentences are dealt with in the same way as the non-consecutive sentences that I have described. These measures deliver a manifesto commitment in just 47 days and show that this is a Government who will act, not delay, and who will build public confidence in the justice system and protect the public. I commend these measures to the House.

Imran Hussain: I want to deal first with the second measure to which the Minister referred, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2019, which is a technical instrument to ensure that the measures in the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019 will extend to those serving consecutive sentences. It amends what would effectively be an inconsistency in sentencing, and we will not oppose it.
I turn to the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019, which will probably be the main subject of our debate. The Government’s stated objectives for the order—to increase public safety and public confidence in the sentencing regime—are ones that the Opposition fully share. I am sure that there is absolute agreement across the House with the principle that serious and dangerous offenders who pose a risk to the public must serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes and keep the public safe. On that basis, we will not oppose the order, but we have some issues.
The Government have not demonstrated why this change is the best way to protect the public. On the evidence that we have been presented with so far, we feel that the case for supporting this order has not been made. This Government have been in power for almost 10 years, and over those 10 years, if they had possessed the desire or drive to increase the public’s confidence in the sentencing regime, and, most importantly, to protect the public, they could have taken action to do that.

Dr Caroline Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is talking about reoffending rates. May I remind him that the reoffending rate for young males under the last Labour Government was 70%?

Imran Hussain: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but the fact of the matter is that in the last 10 years, this Government have enacted policies that at best ignore the impact on public safety, and at worst actively undermine it. Cuts to the police service have led to frontline police officer numbers being slashed and to forces being under-resourced elsewhere. My police force in West Yorkshire has had its budget cut by £140 million since 2010. We have seen cuts to the Prison Service; prison officer numbers have fallen by a quarter between 2010 and 2015, which has left many of our prisons—including high-security prisons—being staffed by inexperienced officers. We have seen an ill-advised decision to break up the probation service, with catastrophic consequences—something that the whole House now accepts—and just days ago, we were found to be leaving the public less safe as a result of under-staffing and overloading with casework.
Prosecution and conviction rates for serious offences have stalled. That has been driven by these cuts to important services that work to keep reoffending down and the public safe. Most alarmingly, prosecution and conviction rates for the offence of rape have fallen by 32% and 26% respectively in a year, creating a situation that women’s groups say effectively amounts to the decriminalisation of rape. Reoffending rates across the whole range of offences remain stubbornly high, with proven reoffending rates for sexual offences fluctuating at about 14% between 2006-07 and 2016-17. The figures for violence against the person offences have increased from 20% to 26%.
Under this Government, the public are less safe. Faced with such a record, we and the public should rightly be sceptical when the Government talk about cutting crime and keeping the public safe. To try to correct their abysmal record and create an impression that they are tough on crime, the Government have brought forward this order, but even they know that it will not be enough to overturn the problems that they have created. Taken on its own, it will increase neither public confidence nor public safety, and it is far from the silver bullet that the Prime Minister would like to praise it as being.
Throughout this process, the Government have consistently failed to make the case for the order and its implementation. As their own impact assessment and explanatory note point out, judges already have powers akin to the ones set out in this order for dangerous offenders. They have the ability to hand down extended determinate sentences, which not only require an offender to serve longer in custody, but are subject to the double lock of the requirement that the parole board be satisfied the offender is no longer a danger to the public before they are released. Conveniently for the Government, however, Ministers seem to have been remiss in telling the public about that when talking about the action they are taking.
Instead of the Government bringing in such measures without properly making the case for them, and without showing evidence that supports their proposal, they should get serious and tell us how they will reduce the   rampant overcrowding and violence in our prisons; how they will increase the quality and availability of real, purposeful activity both in prisons and in the community; how they will deliver an effective probation service that is not hampered by the Government’s failed privatisation agenda, which has proven so disastrous; and for non-violent and non-sexual offenders, how they will deal with the number of ineffective super-short sentences that their own evidence, in the report the Ministry of Justice published last year, shows lead to more people becoming victims of crime than if effective alternatives were used. The Minister accepted that earlier.

James Daly: Does the hon. Member agree that letting violent and sexual offenders back on the streets after they have served just half their sentence is clearly letting victims down?

Imran Hussain: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that I made it absolutely clear at the beginning that we are in full agreement that serious and dangerous offenders who pose a risk to the public must serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes and keep the public safe. The point we are making—I will go on to make it, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me—is that this is a missed opportunity. Quite frankly, there are so many underlying issues that are not being addressed, and as I have said, the order will not single-handedly achieve the objectives mentioned.
We are concerned about the additional pressures that the order will place on an already overstretched Prison and Probation Service. That point was made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who does not appear to be in his place now, but is a learned Member and comes with some experience. The probation service, without sufficient places or staff, will be forced to do the same level of rehabilitative work with offenders after their release, but in the shorter time before the end of their licence period.
The Government have not made the case for this order. To do so, they could have brought forward a comprehensive plan to deal with the additional burden the order will place on our already overstretched Prison and Probation Service—evidence shows that is the most effective way to protect the public—but they did not. We urge the Government to look into and address these issues, and to ensure that prisons have the investment and support they need to meet the needs of their existing population.
The Government must also ensure that the forthcoming changes to the probation service see it better funded and better supported, so it can return to being the award-winning service, protecting the public, that it was before the Conservative party made the disastrous decision to break up and part-privatise probation. The Government must ensure that the Parole Board is sufficiently respected and resourced to deal with release decisions for the most serious offenders and keep the public safe.
This order is ultimately a missed opportunity for the Government. It is a missed opportunity to bring forward a comprehensive and evidence-led sentencing reform package that would make the changes necessary to reduce the number of victims of crime, and to begin to allow the public to regain confidence in our crumbling justice system.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Imran Hussain: I am just concluding now; the hon. Gentleman has missed his chance to intervene.
This order is also a missed opportunity to set out measures that will increase public safety, such as boosting the resources available to the probation service, retaining experienced prison officers and returning our prisons to safe staffing levels, and increasing the availability of real, purposeful activity and rehabilitation programmes in prison and in the community. Instead, we see this piece- meal, headline-seeking approach from the Government, which does not address the crisis in our justice system.
Fundamentally, the Government have failed properly to make the case for this order, by failing to demonstrate that it is the most effective way to keep the public safe and protect victims of crime. We will therefore not support the order this afternoon.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. As we can see, a lot of Members want to speak in what is a very short, time-limited debate, so we will have to introduce a time limit right from the very outset of four minutes to ensure that as many get in as possible.

Lucy Allan: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate the Front-Bench team on bringing forward this measure today. It is a real delight to be standing in this place, welcoming and supporting it with open arms, and there is a very good reason for that.
This issue has affected my constituents very deeply. They have had to live with the consequences of the early release of a serious sexual offender just five years after he received a 22-year sentence for his role as a ringleader in a Telford child grooming case. He was convicted of controlling child sexual exploitation and trafficking for the purposes of child sexual exploitation, and the victims were as young as 13. This was organised child rape with a profit motive.
The impact on the victims and their families and our wider community was such that I began to campaign assiduously for the very measure before us today. I approached many Ministers in the course of this campaign and I do not have time to pay tribute and give thanks to all of them today, but I would like to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and of course the Prime Minister have done a fantastic job in leading the way on this issue; as the Minister rightly said, they have done so very early in this Parliament, having promised that they would. It is a proud moment to be standing here to welcome this legislation.
In December 2012, an eight-week trial led to a grooming gang-leader being handed down a sentence of 22 years, of which 14 were to be served in custody and eight on licence. The victims had been put through the ordeal of an adversarial court case and had been rigorously cross-examined on their testimony and character, and they felt that it was a price worth paying to know that justice had been done. The community was able to breathe a sigh of relief, and victims and survivors and their families set about the process of rebuilding their lives. In this case, however, without it even being considered by the Parole Board, the offender was eligible for automatic early release just five years after the case had been  sentenced. It was because the 14 years in custody was cut in half to seven years and he had already been two years on remand pre-trial. The reaction locally was one of shock and disbelief. There was a sense that the system had once again failed those who needed it most. The victims felt that their experience had been trivialised and demeaned, and the community felt afraid that the offender would return to Telford and still be a risk to the public.
No one in Telford could understand how this had happened and I had no answer to give them. How could victims of serial child rape begin to rebuild their lives if the system failed to recognise the seriousness of the offences committed against them? Yes, there was anger, but the overriding sentiment was: “The people in charge don’t care about us. We’re nothing. If the system doesn’t work for people like us, what is the point of having a system at all?” It made a mockery of justice. There was absolutely no confidence in a system that could trivialise such serious crimes.
What was particularly troubling in this case was the concept that the offender who had committed such crimes was going to be released on licence, and that we should simply expect that he would adhere to his licence conditions and therefore custody was not necessary. He did not adhere to his licence conditions and, fortunately for my community, he is now back in prison for a serious breach of those conditions—indeed, so serious that he is now serving all 22 years of the original sentence.
It is absolutely right that the Government have taken such prompt action on this issue. I thank all those involved in prioritising it. It was in the manifesto and it was in the Queen’s Speech. My constituents are deeply grateful, as I am. It restores trust and confidence in our justice system, and sends the right message to victims of sexual violence.

Sarah Champion: May I also say that it is wonderful to have you back in your rightful place, Mr Deputy Speaker? I would also like to express a huge debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who has done so much work to champion this cause.
It must be a core purpose of the criminal justice system to provide victims and survivors with a sense that justice has been delivered. For that to be achieved, survivors and their families need to feel that the punishment is commensurate with the crime. The all-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, which I chair, last year conducted an inquiry into survivors’ experiences of the criminal justice system. We worked with nearly 400 survivors, many of whom found the pursuit of justice to be confusing, arduous, and, at times, traumatising. Despite the lifelong impact of abuse, many survivors did not feel as if the sentence given to their abuser in any way reflected the severity of the crime that they had committed. Discussing her abuser’s sentence, one survivor said:
“What’s two years? My sentence has been 46 years and counting.”
Commenting on what they felt was a lenient sentence, another survivor said:
“It is a slap in the face for the victim. What message does that send to people thinking of reporting a crime? Why put the victims through years of mental anguish when a lenient sentence is the outcome?”
It is undoubtedly important to victims and survivors of serious sexual offences that sentences are meaningful and proportionate to the impact of the crime, and that they are served.
I am pleased that today’s statutory instrument in part addresses this issue, but more work needs to be done. Looking specifically at the law on double jeopardy, there appears to be a contradiction in the Government’s approach to defining serious sexual offences. For this statutory instrument, a broad list of serious violent and sexual crimes is provided under schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, the Government have a far more restrictive list of serious offences that can be retried in the event of new evidence, otherwise known as double jeopardy. They are listed under schedule 5 of the 2003 Act and do not include the offences of sexual assault of a child under 13, sexual activity with a child, or causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. These are certainly very serious crimes and there can be no doubt that children who experience non-penetrative sexual abuse experience significant trauma as a result. Does the Minister agree with me that all forms of child abuse should be recognised as a very serious offence? Will he commit to review the law on double jeopardy, with a view to including all sexual offences committed against a child?
I would like to touch briefly on support for survivors of sexual violence and abuse. Time after time, survivors told our inquiry that they felt discarded at the end of the justice process. Few were referred to appropriate support services, and those that were described long waiting lists and limits to the therapeutic sessions available. The Government have a rare opportunity to address this crisis in their spending review by creating a cross-departmental strategy and fund for responding to child abuse.
Finally, longer sentences will not make the changes we want unless they are underpinned with safeguarding when the offender is released. Too often, survivors tell me that they have no knowledge of their offender being released until they find out on social media. It is a serious concern that little to no effective rehabilitation is carried out in prisons, but on release good work is done by charities such as the Circles projects and the probation service, but those are both under resourced. The Government also need to invest in early intervention when perpetrators first show inappropriate behaviour so that it does not escalate. All that takes funding and will, and I urge the Government to prioritise those for all our sakes.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who both made important points about the need to safeguard the interests of victims. In relation to the measure itself, I think most of us recognise that the objective is an entirely laudable and proper one. It is right that there is confidence in the sentencing process for the general public, and it is right that those who commit the most serious offences should receive condign and appropriate punishment, so I do not have a problem with supporting this measure.
There is no great magic in two thirds, as opposed to a half. What this measure does is to take the situation back to where it was when I started in practice at the  Bar before 2003, and that was certainly the feeling among professionals at the time, when it was changed from two thirds to a half. That was largely done as a matter of presentation, because it enabled the then Labour Government to suggest that they were reducing the number of prisoners. What we have failed to do for many decades is to actually invest in prisons, so I hope that, at the same time as we make sure that we have proper levels of sentencing for those who commit serious offences, we will invest in our prison estate, which—as the Justice Committee has pointed out in several reports—suffers from grave overcrowding and, in many cases, from a serious degradation in the physical fabric of the buildings, and for that reason is often not able to deliver the rehabilitative work that we all wish to see. As Lord Garnier said in the other House when this was debated, it is not the magic of two thirds as opposed to a half that is important; it is what we do with people when they are in prison.
The other thing that we need to tackle—and I know the Government are determined to do this—is to ensure we get down our stubbornly high rates of reoffending. Our rates of reoffending are markedly worse than many of our near neighbours’ rates. I do not think that is because the British population are inherently more inclined to commit crime than those of the Netherlands or Scandinavia; it is because we have not historically made enough, perhaps nuanced, use of imprisonment to turn lives around.
I recognise that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), when he was Lord Chancellor, started an ambitious scheme to make sure that purposeful activity, rehabilitation, re-education and changing lives around were key parts of our prison strategy. I know that the current Lord Chancellor shares that view, and I hope that we will see the rest of the package of justice measures advance that side of the equation too, so that we get that balance right, which includes tough sentences where they are warranted and which the public has confidence in; good, positive, constructive work with prisoners while they are inside to make them less likely to offend when they are released; and robust alternatives to custody for those who do not perhaps present a physical threat, but have often got into criminality because of drug addiction, mental health issues and a raft of other matters that are better tackled much earlier, by early intervention.
I hope that we will not lose the opportunity to have greater transparency and simplicity in sentencing, which has become complicated even for judges, as I know from experience. Of course there is a Law Commission enabling measure in the other place, under the special Law Commission procedure, to lay the ground for a codification of sentencing. That will be a welcome step and something that the Justice Committee has urged the Government to do. I hope the Minister will be able to take that on board too.

Dehenna Davison: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this most important of debates. Out there, there are countless victims of some of the most serious crimes—rape victims, GBH victims, the families and loved ones of manslaughter victims. My family and I fall into that last category, as I  have previously mentioned in this place. In my case, a line from Lois McMaster Bujold’s 2002 novel sticks with me:
“The dead cannot cry out for justice. It is a duty of the living to do so for them.”
It is our duty to ensure that justice is done for the victims of the most heinous crimes. For those victims and their families, it can be difficult to feel that justice can ever be served in an appropriate and proportionate way. That is why sentencing is so crucially important. I can remember sitting in court at age 14, listening intently to proceedings—if I thought I had nervous butterflies on election day, they were absolutely nothing compared with that.
In the road to recovery from a severe criminal court case, the delivery of the verdict is the first hurdle. For victims and families who do hear a guilty verdict, the second hurdle is the delivery of a sentence. When a sentence feels too lenient, it can leave a victim or family feeling lost and drifting, with justice not having been done and no real way to move on. We must always support victims by ensuring that the sentences that are delivered are proportionate and sufficiently serious.
The third hurdle to recovery is what this debate is focused on: the point at which the sentenced perpetrator is released from prison. I still remember the day that my nan saw my dad’s killer for the very first time after he was released after just 18 months, and the anger, frustration, confusion and sheer grief that flashed across her face, especially when he raised a glass to her as we drove by, which was a real clincher. This experience is shared by far too many, with victims feeling severely let down by the current automatic halfway release point.
What is the purpose of a prison sentence? There are several. The first is to protect the public from the offender. The second is to ensure that victims feel that justice has been done. A serious offender serving just half a sentence does not provide victims and victims’ families with that sense of justice. The third is to act as a deterrent for future offences, but the existing automatic halfway release gives a sense of leniency, which means that it does not necessarily act as a deterrent in the way that it should. The fourth and final purpose of a prison sentence is to provide an environment in which offenders can be rehabilitated. For serious offences, it is not perverse to assume that such rehabilitation could be a lengthy and complex process. By ending the automatic halfway release from prison, these changes will also ensure that the most serious offenders have more time with specialist support in prison to rehabilitate them and prepare them for release into the community. Of course, it is right that they will still be subject to strict conditions on their release.
In the manifesto that we were elected on with a substantial mandate, we vowed that we would introduce tougher sentencing for the worst offenders. Like other colleagues have said today, I had some reservations about moving the goalposts from an automatic halfway point to two thirds, because for some victims this may seem like it is not enough. However, I was really encouraged to hear the Minister talk about this as the first step that our Government can achieve quickly to begin to deliver on that election promise at the earliest possible opportunity. I will certainly follow the sentencing White Paper with close interest to ensure that victims are represented fully  in the legislative process. I support this statutory instrument as a step towards proving to victims that we are on their side.

Dean Russell: I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) for making such a powerful speech.
In Watford, I have had many emails and conversations over the past few months where people feel that there has been a creeping, pervasive shift away from the victim towards the perpetrator—that the victim is no longer put first, but the perpetrator is. That feeling causes not only great frustration, but an awful lot of fear for many people. They feel that people have decided—often it is a decision, whether that is in a moment of passion, pre-planned or an ongoing situation—to do the wrong thing and yet the victim, who had no choice, is the one who is not looked after and cared for. Sentencing is a really clear part of the law of the land, which needs to be upheld. When we look at the length of the sentences that we give to criminals who have decided to do the wrong thing, we should be saying to them, “There is a very clear consequence of your actions and that consequence will be delivered upon.” Giving people half a sentence is not the right way to go, so I applaud the Government for saying in the SI that we need to fulfil more of that sentence—ideally, I would say the whole of it, but that is just me going a bit further.
In looking at the criminal justice system, of course we have to look at rehabilitation. We also need to look at pre-offending provision, such as education to stop people getting into this situation, and particularly for things such as knife crime, we need the right facilities, from community centres to education, to support that, so that we do not have children and young people getting into a life of crime, especially violent crime.
On this specific SI, we have to carefully consider the victim’s voice, listen to them and include them in the ongoing conversation, because as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland, these crimes are not one-off moments, but affect victims and their families over the ripples of time, forever, but too often that gets forgotten.
We must also remember the police in this process. I have been out with them and talked to them. They put so much work into catching criminals and do so much paperwork. They are out there trying to catch these people. What message does it send to them when they have caught them if we say, “Hey, you’ve caught them, but in a few months or years, we’re going to cut their sentence”. It is an injustice in itself. It must also be incredibly demotivating for our hard-working police forces and the families and victims when the offenders are told, “You’ve done okay, so we’ll release you early”.
In conclusion, I applaud the Government for introducing this SI. It is the right thing to do. Rehabilitation and pre-offending education are key, but please let us put victims first and show the nation that we are the party and Government to keep this country safe.

Laura Trott: It has been a long journey to get sexual assaults, in particular, treated as among the most serious offences in the justice system, so I welcome the changes in the statutory instrument.
Standard determinate sentences are given out for minor offences but also for the most serious. Having no distinction in the automatic release trigger point between the two is clearly an injustice that needs to be rectified. When implementing this change, we must ensure two things. First, some prisoners who carry out the most serious crimes should not be automatically released at all; rather, their release should be reviewed by the Parole Board and covered by rules applying to extended determinate sentences or sentences for offenders of particular concern. The statistic, which the Minister highlighted, of 84% of rapists being given standard determinate sentences is one of concern, but one I know he will look at in the sentencing review.
The proportion of sex offenders who reoffend within a year is 14%. As part of the sentencing review, we should look at how a judge assesses whether someone represents an ongoing danger to the public and whether a standard determinate sentence is appropriate at all. Regardless, it is important when we introduce this change that we do not inadvertently reduce the use by judges of the ability to categorise offenders as dangerous and therefore necessitate Parole Board involvement. Undoubtedly some prisoners will still pose a danger to the public after two thirds of their sentence is complete and therefore will not be suitable for standard determinate sentences, regardless of these now being more robust. That is obviously not the intention, but we should monitor the change to make sure that it does not have this effect on sentencing decisions. Over time, we should also reduce the use of standard determinate sentences for sex offenders in general.
Secondly, the driving force behind these changes is to help victims have greater confidence in the criminal justice system and to keep offenders off our streets. The fear of meeting attackers again continually comes up among victims in my constituency and in victims surveys. These changes will help immensely with that and give victims time to deal with their horrendous ordeals. We will have the chance later, however, to go further, particularly on licensing conditions. At the moment, victims have to request that no-contact conditions be included as part of their licence. We should consider making that automatic over time. It would help to relieve the burden on individuals.
To conclude, it is important that we keep these changes under review—we must make sure that the most serious offenders go before the Parole Board and are not let out automatically—but this SI is right. It is a necessary and welcome step forward for victims of the most serious crimes.

Bim Afolami: I support the statutory instrument, and in doing so I support not just the Minister, but the strength of the voices in favour of it on the Conservative Benches.
This statutory instrument is really about three things. It is about delivering on our promises, it is about public safety, and it is about community cohesion. I want to focus on the third.
We talk about crime in two ways, I was very moved by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) said about the impact on individuals of serious violent crime in particular. However, although we tend to talk only about the impact on those individuals,  there is also an impact on families and communities. Safe streets and safe communities are not the sufficient, but the necessary conditions for a productive, thriving, worthwhile life. Unless you, your family and your community are safe, you cannot bring up your family; unless you, your family and your community are safe, you cannot go to school, go to work and get on in life. That safety is fundamental to everything. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell): this Government, and indeed any British Government, must ensure that the British people feel and are safe, because that is the foundation of everything else that we talk about in this Chamber.
It is a shame that the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) is no longer in the Chamber, because I want to take on the argument—I admit that it came not from the Labour Front Bench, but from the Liberal Democrats—that spending less time in prison is somehow safer, over either the short or the long term. I believe that that argument is a poor one, and is not borne out by any evidence.
Of course the rehabilitation of prisoners needs to be improved. I think that the Minister, indeed everybody, understands that, and the Government are working hard on it: for them it is a major priority. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), investment in our prison estate also needs to be improved. However, if prisoners spend more time on release when they are dangerous, and there is evidence that they are dangerous because of the offences that they have committed, that poses a danger to the safety of the public.
This statutory instrument is going in the right direction. I should like it to go further, but I take in good part the Minister’s statement that it is a first step and part of a wider range of measures. It is right, and it is right not just for individuals, but for individuals, families and communities. Safer streets and safer communities are the foundation of everything that we talk about in the Chamber. This is what I, as a Member of Parliament, want to represent and will stand for, this is what Conservative Members should always do, and this is what the Government are proving that they are doing by introducing the statutory instrument.

Lee Anderson: No one should feel unsafe walking the streets, but unfortunately some people do. For far too long decent people in this country have been victims of violent crime, and time and again we see those violent criminals given paltry sentences and released early, so that they are back on the streets to wreak havoc and create misery. Unfortunately, some people cannot live by the rules of our society. They must therefore be taken to a place that has different rules, and that place is prison.
In Ashfield, people are fed up with violent crime. They are fed up with seeing violent criminals get short sentences, and then leave prison halfway through their sentences. I will tell you who else is fed up. Our police are fed up. They have a difficult enough job as it is, apprehending the most violent criminals in our society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) said earlier, they must be really angry to see violent criminals released early and back out on the  streets—and guess what? Our police are then having to waste time and resources catching those criminals and putting them back through the system.
It is not rocket science. If you lock up a serious offender for 10 years instead of five, that is five more years when they are no longer a threat or a risk to society. It gives them five more years to reflect on their crimes, and it gives us five more years to rehabilitate the most serious and violent offenders in this country. I welcome this statutory instrument. I also welcome the fact that we are recruiting 20,000 extra police officers and creating 10,000 more prison places, as well as locking up our most serious offenders for longer. That will not only make our streets safer but restore confidence in our justice system.

Imran Nasir Ahmad Khan: It is a pleasure to be called to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, especially now that I have something to say. Wakefield is a peace-loving and loyal city that does its duty and securely houses the many men and women who reside in the constituency at Her Majesty’s pleasure. I believe fundamentally in redemption and the power of rehabilitation. I have experience gained from assisting the Pakistan army and the United Nations in designing the curriculum and facility in the shadow of Churchill’s picket on the summit of Malakand pass in the provincially administered tribal areas of what was until recently known as the North-West Frontier province. That facility has become known as Sabayoon, a Pashto word that refers to the first rays of the morning light that herald the dawn. The facility, like Wakefield’s high-security jail, houses many deeply troubled criminal young minds.
Sabayoon, however, was designed to de-radicalise and rehabilitate young people who were being groomed to become suicide bombers under the brutal direction of Mullah Fazle Rehman, then leader of the vicious brutes that controlled Swat and shot Malala Yousafzai. The process to rehabilitate those who have been trained to do harm to their neighbours and themselves is a long process. The length of that process is in fact a kindness, as it permits a thorough assessment of each subject and the time required to provide valuable life skills, so that when they are finally deemed fit to be readmitted to society, they are equipped with the wherewithal to forge a meaningful new life away from malign influences. Sadly, despite the best efforts of all, some subjects are simply incapable of reformation and are likely to remain a threat to themselves and others for as long as they live. For such people who are beyond reform, if not redemption, a full whole-life sentence is necessary.
This experience has informed my views at home, and I believe that sentences should be long, to allow for reform. Reformation, rather than just punishment, should therefore be the primary objective, and long sentences, coupled with effective programmes, can help to achieve this objective. Her Majesty’s Government’s plans to provide 20,000 more police officers with enhanced powers, along with £35 million extra to tackle violent crime, 10,000 more prison places, and tougher and longer sentences, when taken together, constitute a real and credible plan to make our streets and homes safer, and I thoroughly support this statutory instrument.

Claire Coutinho: This is only my third contribution in this House, and I am glad to be making it on these statutory instruments. Indeed, I welcome the wider package of measures that we are introducing to toughen up the criminal justice system overall. I have been humbled by the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who I know has campaigned for a long time on this issue, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), who gave the House a deeply moving and personal account. Members of the public sometimes worry that politicians are out of touch, but those two contributions alone show how in touch we on these green Benches are on this issue.
We must remember that these measures deal with the very worst of offenders. We have heard about rape, grievous bodily harm with intent and child sexual exploitation. I have heard directly from my constituents about the devastation they have felt at being victims of such crimes, which is then amplified when the offenders are released at the halfway point. It is a second betrayal, and it puts a serious strain on victims and communities.
I agree with the concern that automatic release at the halfway point does not provide an incentive to change behaviour sufficiently, and that is not just a wrong committed against the victims who feel that justice has not been served, but a wrong against future potential victims, against communities and their ability to feel safe, and against perpetrators who have not been rehabilitated. I understand and wholeheartedly agree with the worries about increasing sentences to the full-term point, but there is an issue of capacity and ensuring that we can deliver on our promises, so I welcome this measure and its expedience. I also welcome the spending of billions on the prison system and downstream costs within the criminal justice system so that we can deliver for victims.
One of the greatest duties that I have in this place is to ensure the safety of my communities and to ensure that victims feel that justice has been served. I support this SI and welcome the measures brought forward today.

Aaron Bell: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). This debate is about public confidence not just in our judicial system, but in our political system, which will come to in a little bit.
The principal purposes of sentencing are quite well understood by most of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) touched on them—and I believe that the public support them. On protection, increased sentences for the worst offenders will increase public protection. On deterrence, it remains to be seen, but one would have thought that if someone knows that they will go to prison for longer, they will be appropriately further deterred. On rehabilitation, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) made an important intervention earlier, this measure provides more time for rehabilitation. It is important that we do a better job than perhaps we have been doing, but it can only be a good thing to allow  more time for support and rehabilitation for people who are not only some of the worst offenders, but perhaps have some of the worst reasons for being so. These measures also offer more of a chance for people to pay reparations, although I appreciate that can happen in the community, too. Last but not least, punishment is another important part of sentencing, and there is nothing unworthy in that, because it is fundamental to justice.
However, my experience on the doorstep in Newcastle-under-Lyme is that most people do not support automatic early release for the worst offenders—certainly not at half-time, as at present, or at even less than half-time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) mentioned. People are cynical about it. They look at the length of a sentence and say, “Well, it won’t be anywhere near that. They will probably be out in 18 months”, or whatever. Our manifesto commitment was therefore actually very popular and will restore some balance to the different purposes of sentencing and, dare I say, some good old-fashioned common sense.
The wheels of justice can often turn slowly. Likewise, this place rightly takes its time when it has complex Bills to consider—well, at least most of the time—but my constituents will welcome the fact that, with these statutory instruments, we have been able to act quickly to deliver on a clear promise that we made a couple of months ago. That swift action will in turn strengthen public confidence not just in our judicial system, which is what we are talking about today, but in our political system. People will know that we can pull our finger out when there is clear and pressing demand from public belief that the present system is unsatisfactory. In addition to the public in general, the change will strengthen victims’ confidence. The Victims’ Commissioner said:
“I welcome any move to make sentencing more transparent”.
Victims’ rights campaigner Harry Fletcher has said that the previous system
“removed the incentive to comply and reform. Increasing time served but encouraging good behaviour restores the balance for victims.”
Balance is very important.
We still have more to do. The sentencing Bill, the foreign national offenders Bill and many other Bills in the Queen’s Speech will form a welcome and more comprehensive package than what we are discussing today, but this is a swift and impressive first step, so I commend these statutory instruments to the House.

James Daly: Prior to coming to the House I was a criminal legal aid defence solicitor for 16 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) mentioned, this statutory instrument simply takes us back to a position that I recognise from the courts prior to 2003. It is no more than that. Sentencing is a multifaceted matter that covers many issues, but I have yet to hear one positive, coherent argument as to why we should keep automatic release at the halfway stage in sentences for the most dangerous offenders. There is no argument for doing that. I have yet to have a constituent in Bury North knock on my door to say that we must keep that for the public good—there clearly is no public good in it.
We are here to defend the public interest. Why is this statutory instrument in the public interest? It will protect the public, for the reasons articulated by all speakers in  this debate. Importantly, it will increase the deterrent impact of long-term sentences. What I take from my experience in the courts is that severe, deterrent sentences have an impact on behaviour, which this debate sometimes seems to ignore.
As other colleagues have said, this measure allows an extra period of rehabilitation for offenders. Valid points have been raised about the nature of the rehabilitation programmes that are available, especially in prisons, because sentencing is worth little if it is not effective. Sadly, despite our having fantastic probation officers and fantastic prison officers, my experience of working in the criminal justice system is that rehabilitative sentences have simply not achieved the expected outcomes, whether in reducing reoffending rates or putting people on to a more positive way of life. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look at those sentences, because they are not working. Much work has to be done to address the underlying reasons for offending. Most importantly, victims and their families must be at the centre of our thoughts in any sentencing guidelines and sentencing measures that come through this place. I am sorry for repeating myself, but it is inconceivable that we could say dangerous offenders should automatically be released at the 50% stage—it is as simple as that.
We are dancing on the head of a pin. We can debate other important things, but I would welcome it if any hon. Member could point to a constituent who thinks such automatic release is a good idea.

Tom Hunt: We recently had a tragic case in Ipswich in which a young man was murdered. The murderers were sentenced to life in prison, and another was sentenced to 14 years for manslaughter. He bragged on Facebook about how easy it is in prison and how he will be let out halfway. As a direct result of that action, would it not be reasonable to eliminate any chance he has of being let out halfway?

James Daly: Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s words speak for themselves.
I congratulate the Front-Bench team and my other colleagues. We are acting on a manifesto commitment that is in the public interest and that will have an impact on offending behaviour. We have all talked about other related issues, but this is a good measure that is supported by the public, and I warmly welcome it.

Rachel Maclean: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the incredible contributions of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison)—she is so new to this place, yet she speaks with such passion—and my more experienced hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who has championed this issue. We are all in awe of them.
This is a manifesto commitment, as the Minister said, and we politicians must take seriously our efforts to keep our promises to the public. The Government must be on the side of law-abiding people who do the right thing, and we must have a care for the victims of heinous crimes.
Many colleagues have spoken about getting sentencing right. This is not about just locking people up and throwing away the key. The scales of justice are there for  a reason. We must be tough on people who commit crimes, but we must also be tough in providing opportunities to help those who want to reform. In a compassionate and civilised society, we must never lose sight of that, as it is the ultimate mark of a Government who are truly compassionate and who care about social justice.
To that end, I wish to use my time to touch on an organisation of which I have personal experience and which will be familiar to Members of this House—Learning Together. One of my sons was a volunteer for that charity while at Cambridge University. He started his volunteering when he first studied there, and he has told me that it was the most profound and meaningful experience he had while at Cambridge. He saw at first hand the impact he had when he was working with prisoners, some of whom could not read or write. Some of the work he was doing there with his fellow students at Cambridge was truly transformational, so I want to speak up for charities such as that, which are doing difficult work; we are all familiar with the Fishmongers’ Hall tragedy. We as a Government must continue to support those charities and allow them to work with criminals, and even terrorists, to reform them if possible.
I also want to speak about an organisation called RoadPeace, which is involved in my constituency. My friend Lucy Harrison has brought this charity to my attention. What RoadPeace is doing is relevant for the Minister when he comes to look at the wider powers in the sentencing Bill. It is calling for driving crime to be looked at as “real crime”. My friend Lucy lost her brother, and it had a profound impact on her life. We definitely need to look at sentencing for driving crimes, as it is currently not adequate. I am sure that many of our constituents all across the country who have experience of that would like to see the system changed.
The Government are looking at justice across the board, doing our best and introducing real change to the system, in order to keep the public safe. We are introducing 20,000 new police officers and 10,000 new prison places. This Government are on the side of people doing the right thing, so I welcome these measures and thank the Front-Bench team for what they have done to bring it forward.

Chris Philp: This has been a full and, at times, moving debate. I have been particularly grateful for the contributions by the many Members from the new 2019 intake. Their contributions have been impressive, well-informed and moving, and I look forward to hearing many more such contributions in the weeks, months and indeed years ahead.
I wish to touch briefly on some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) both drew attention to making sure that the resources are available so that the extra people in prison can be properly accommodated and rehabilitated. Let me repeat the assurance I gave that the extra investment, a total of £2.75 billion, is designed to do exactly that. We are talking about 10,000 extra prison places, over and above the 3,500 currently under construction, as well as extra money for prison refurbishment and prison security.
My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) made an extremely powerful point, as did the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who is not in her place, about the importance of victims in this entire debate. We are doing this as much for victims as for anything else. They have suffered terribly at the hands of offenders and expect the perpetrator to spend more of their sentence in prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) spoke movingly about her own tragic experience of a family member who was a victim of a very serious crime, and the terrible circumstance she described is exactly why we are bringing forward this statutory instrument. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) made a similar point about the importance of victims in this whole debate. Opposition Members asked, “Why are you bringing this forward? What is the rationale?” The speeches we have heard this afternoon about the impact that early release has on the victims of these terrible crimes—often crimes of rape and, in some cases, even manslaughter—powerfully make the case for this statutory instrument. However, as I said and as many Members have mentioned, it is only the first step. The White Paper we will be publishing, followed by a sentencing Bill, provides an opportunity to go further and broader.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), who clearly has a lot of experience in this area, touched on tackling the causes of some kinds of offending. I very much want to see us do more to treat issues such as drug addiction, alcohol addiction and mental health problems, which are often the causes of some kinds of low-level repeat offending. As an alternative to short prison sentences, treatment is essential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) made an interesting and important point about whether extended determinate sentences should be more widely applied. The figures I gave earlier showed that few serious offences currently attract EDSs—for example, 84% of rapes get a standard determinate sentence with an automatic release point—so that is exactly the kind of question we should consider as part of the sentencing White Paper and the debate that will follow. I strongly urge my hon. Friend to take that point forward. I have listened to it, but I urge her to make it again and to make representations during the White Paper process.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) made some important points about prevention. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made some equally important points about the importance of preventing criminal offences by incarcerating serious criminals for a little longer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) made a critical overarching point: that by fulfilling this manifesto commitment so quickly, after just 47 days, we are demonstrating that we are on the side of law-abiding citizens and believe in keeping our promises.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) made an intervention about a manslaughter case in which a 14-year sentence was handed down. If I have understood the case history correctly, the case that he described—a 14-year sentence for manslaughter with an automatic release at halfway—is exactly within the scope of this statutory instrument. By passing this SI,  we can ensure that the terrible circumstances that he so eloquently and powerfully described will not happen again.
We have heard some extremely compelling speeches this afternoon. Members have spoken on behalf of victims, whose voice it is so important that we hear in the House. The measures that we are about to pass are simply the first step in part of a wider process to make sure that we not only protect the public but respect the rights and concerns of victims. I strongly commend the order and regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 14 October 2019, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 October 2019, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Tom Pursglove.)

Petition - Over 75s free TV licences

David Linden: Britain has one of the worst state pensions in Europe, with pensioners being paid a pittance compared with their peers elsewhere on the continent. Of course, due to the injustice perpetrated against the WASPI women, many female pensioners have been denied their state pension until much later. To add insult to injury, the Tories’ Centre for Social Justice think-tank has suggested that the retirement age should be increased to 75, which is just outrageous.
The latest Westminster assault on pensioners is the proposal to axe the free TV licence for our constituents who are over the age of 75. The Scottish National party will fight that every step of the way, so I rise to present a petition from many of my constituents in Mount Vernon, Sandyhills and Carntyne, to name just a few areas.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of Glasgow East,
Declares that free TV licences to households with someone aged over 75 should remain for the foreseeable future; notes that this scheme should remain in governmental hands rather than being privatised by the BBC; further that the removal of the free TV licences will have a negative impact on some of the poorest pensioners in the constituency and across the country; further notes that one of BBC’s proposals in the consultation is means-testing the concession by linking the free licences to Pension Credit; further that the Department for Work and Pensions own estimates show that nationally 40% (two in five) of those entitled to receive Pension Credit are not in receipt of the benefit and would be excluded; further that access to media, especially if frail or housebound, can reduce loneliness in old age and improve well-being.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse the planned decision to end the funding of the free TV licence to households with someone aged over 75 and privatisation of this to the BBC.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002552]

Mental Health Act: Section 136

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Tom Pursglove.)

Paul Beresford: The subject of this debate is section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, but I am discussing only a tiny aspect of it. As a Minister from the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), is responding, I am dodging all leaflets, letters and things that I have received from Mind and all the rest of it, and just narrowly looking at one little thing.
This evening, there is a dinner for the parliamentary police graduates; those of us who have been on the course with the police are going. The great advantage of the course, as with similar courses, is that people on it learn what it is like to be a police officer, both on and behind the frontline. Many of us come back from it wishing to make legal changes, because we have seen what it is like to face the problems that police officers face day in, day out. I have often used this route to address issues to do with child protection cases—I think I have 12 or 13 of them. There is one that I have nagged on for some considerable time. It comes from an experience that I had when out in a patrol car with a couple of uniformed cops in Wandsworth. I have raised this matter several times, but some of the answers that I have received—I hesitate to say this to Minister—were not very clever.
Section 136 gives the police the power to remove a person from a public place to a place of safety when that person appears to be suffering from mental disorder. The person will need to be deemed by the police to be in immediate need of care and control as their behaviour is of concern. They are detained, not arrested. From 2018 to 2019, some 50,000 people were detained under the Mental Health Act; about 18,000 or 19,000 people were detained under section 136. It is a little piece of a big Act that has a big effect, and most of it is positive—including, ultimately, for the people detained.
As I say, a person will be deemed by the police to be in immediate need of care and control because their behaviour is of concern. Frequently, this is when the police are trying to stop the individual committing suicide. There have been tragic misinterpretations, and because of a civil quirk I will touch on, the police have had to release the person detained without taking them into a place of care. Ultimately, that person has gone home, or to a relative, and committed suicide. I want this tiny change so that that cannot happen.
As I have said, it is important to point out that the person is not under arrest. When a decision is made to remove them, they are being removed for their own care to a place of safety. The police power is to facilitate the assessment of their health and wellbeing, as well as to provide safety for the people around them. That is excellent, as far as it goes. My primary focus is on the fact that this applies fully only if the individual is in what is deemed to be a public place.
My interest comes from my personal involvement in one case, as I have said, plus from considerable discussions with frontline police officers over the years—predominantly from the Metropolitan police and the Surrey police—and with Professor Rix, who has just retired as a psychiatric  consultant, and who was so upset about what was happening that he has been campaigning with the police. There are also a few senior police officers up and down the country who are so concerned that they are campaigning on this as well.
A few years ago, I joined two young uniformed police officers in their response car in Wandsworth. We attended a call with the blues and twos on. It was quite spectacular for me, sitting in the back seat. The officers were excellent drivers; how we missed hitting people on the way there was quite remarkable. We dashed to a residential council tower block, of which Wandsworth has quite a number, and went up to the 14th floor, where a very nervous lady—the mother of the household—let us in.
When we walked in, we saw the woman’s 22-year-old daughter standing on the windowsill of the open window, about to jump. The moment she saw us, she moved further towards the edge, so we moved back out and tried as best we could to persuade her to come down from that precarious position. We quickly established that she had a history of genuine suicide attempts, so this was for real. We pulled back to some degree because she clearly did not like the sight of uniformed police, but fortunately we were joined by two plain clothes officers. One was a very quick and clever lady officer, who entered the flat and managed to persuade the girl to come down from the windowsill and sit on the bed. She saw the pills that the girl planned to take for the suicide if she was not able to jump out of the window, pushed them to one side, gradually removed them and calmed the girl down. The girl clearly needed to go to a place of safety for psychiatric and medical help, but she vehemently refused and became very agitated the moment that was mentioned. She made a number of attempts to go back to the window, and had to be caught and brought back to the bed.
In the meantime, we made contact with the nearby St George’s Hospital psychiatric unit, seeking urgent assistance and someone of professional standing, as required under section 136, effectively to commit her so that she could be taken away to safety. The unit was busy, and it was some considerable time before a healthcare official finally turned up, with an ambulance and a crew. Many healthcare professionals say that it is better to have an ambulance than a police car in such circumstances, but it had completely the opposite effect for that young lady. When she saw the ambulance coming, she was off for the window again, and we had to get her back. The healthcare professional asked her to come quietly into care. That made matters even worse, and we had a tremendous struggle, but in due course the sad young lady was transported to the unit at St George’s, which is designed to be a place of safety. A life was saved—eventually.
The whole pantomime in that 14th-floor flat had occupied five officers and three NHS staff for about four hours. I am not counting myself, as a bystander. I warn any Members who go on such trips that it is par for the course that the police do not like us to get involved. I was trying to help in another case when there was a bit of a fight, and a very large police sergeant told me to keep out of the way, because “We don’t want a” dot-dot-dot “by-election”; that was really caring of him.
It was obvious from the beginning that the police themselves could quite simply have taken care of the young lady quickly and gently. They were very competent, and could have sorted it out and taken her to care. Admittedly, they would have taken her in a police car, but it could have been a plain police car—not an ambulance. Immediate action would have meant that she was transferred to safe care and would have met the required time limit for assessment, which I think is 24 hours. It would have been very quick, and would have reduced the continuing risk over the period in which we saw her attempts to leap out of the window. It was a huge waste of time, except for the end result, for the police and the national health service professional; that is aside from the up-and-down agitation for the young lady.
Under section 136 of the Mental Health Act, if this pantomime had taken place in a public place—if we had managed to persuade the young lady to go outside the flat’s front door and place herself on the landing—the police would have been able to take her into detention and take her to the hospital. We would not have had to wait for a mental health professional, and she would have gone into the care of St George’s.
When I raised this in a debate in 2017, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department assured me that there was a triage system under a new, innovative policy, so that
“most police officers will be deployed alongside mental health professionals, so if a call comes into the centre that somebody is experiencing a problem of the type we have heard about, mental health professionals will be sent along with the police officers as they respond.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 269.]
I liked the Minister. She was very earnest, and she clearly believed everything she was saying to me. I was polite, and I did not look for pigs flying around the Chamber, as I could have done. On hearing her remarks, Professor Rix and police officers who were campaigning on the issue—Professor Rix was here this evening—were absolutely astonished. The politer comments were, “Get real”, and, “Yeah, right.”
There are throughout the United Kingdom large numbers of frontline police officers who respond to all sorts of emergencies, including events like this one. There are not the same number of mental health professionals waiting around, driving around, going out with the police or waiting for a call, so that they can meet the police when they are on patrol to deal with a situation like this.

Jeff Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. When I speak to the police service in Greater Manchester, they tell me what an enormous proportion of their time is spent dealing with people in mental health crisis. There are a number of aspects to this; I will not comment on his individual case. This surely points to the need for much greater investment in mental health crisis care and mental health community services. I hope that he will go on to mention that, and that the Minister will respond. While I am on my feet, perhaps I can ask the Minister when the Government plan to bring forward the White Paper in response to the Wessely review.

Paul Beresford: I suspected that I might get that question. That is why, as I very carefully explained, I asked for a Home Office Minister, not a Department of  Health Minister. I suspect it would be better if the hon. Gentleman asked a written question, rather than asking my poor hon. Friend on the Front Bench something that he cannot possibly answer because he is not expecting it.
I found the reality of going out with the police to be completely different from what my very lovely Under-Secretary of State lady told me. The system just does not work. I am therefore suggesting a change that has been requested by the police. When I have put this to the police, the enthusiasm has been emphatic. They have been quite clear about it. One of them, who has had to deal with a lot of these cases, again in central London, commented, “Whoever puts this through will be a hero as far as we’re concerned.” But also, unwittingly, they will be a hero for those mentally ill people who are in distress, who need help and who may well commit suicide.
I am requesting a simple change, effectively removing the restrictive reference to a public place. It is quite simple to do. I have a small ten-minute rule Bill that would have fitted the purpose, but I pulled it because the Department of Health said that it had a review, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) suggested. It does have a review, and there is a lot to be reviewed. This is a simple change to make life just that little bit easier for our battered policemen when they are dealing sympathetically—I have always found them sympathetic in these cases—with people who are mentally ill, and who are threatening to damage other people or themselves.
As I said, it has been enthusiastically supported by police officers and by Professor Rix, who has almost made it his psychiatric gift to the nation to undertake this campaign for a number of years.
Experience tells me that the Minister will, in the nicest possible way, probably say, “Thank you, but no thank you,” or, “We’re reviewing this”; I can see by his smile that the temptation is there. Having been a Minister in similar debates, I can assure him that it is possible—I have done it myself—to see the words that you have been given to read out and deviate from them. If the answer that I got before is the answer that he is going to give me, can he stall it? Instead, will he genuinely look at this and meet me, Professor Rix and one or two of the police officers who are deeply into this, to see whether we can do something positive to make it much easier for police officers in these circumstances to deal with individuals, particularly those who are either going to hurt somebody else or hurt themselves? I have a string of cases from the police and Professor Rix that I could go through with him.
As I said, something like 19,000 people were detained under section 136 in 2018-19. That is not known by most people, but it is certainly known by the police officers who are helping people in desperate circumstances to keep themselves alive or not hurt other people. This is a plea to the Minister to be positive this time.

Kit Malthouse: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing the debate. His long-standing interest in these matters is well known. I am grateful to him for raising this important issue, and I congratulate him on his persistence in repeatedly raising it. I have learned in my relatively  short time in this place that persistence often pays. I am not sure whether it necessarily will on this particular occasion, but perhaps we could meet in the future to discuss where things may go.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on spending time with his local police officers. I am encouraging as many Members as possible to do so, because a lot can be learned on the frontline, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) said. I have met quite a few police officers over the last few months, and one thing that the response teams in particular have persistently raised with me is the amount of time they spend dealing with people who have mental health issues. It is a tribute to them that for many people they are the automatic first port of call for help in a wide range of situations.
Notwithstanding that, it is not acceptable that the police should be asked to cover the roles of other agencies out of normal hours simply because they are a 24/7 service, or because of staff or facilities shortages elsewhere. The police are not trained social workers, paramedics or mental health professionals, and assisting people who need these services also prevents the police from carrying out their own core tasks. Sometimes police involvement will be necessary in mental health cases, because either criminality or a threat to safety is involved. In such cases, it is vital that people in police custody have access to the support and medical care they need. However, it is clear that the best place for people suffering a mental health crisis is a healthcare setting, because the police cannot provide the specialist care they need.
There has been good progress through a number of initiatives to improve the way that the police and their partners respond to vulnerable people experiencing mental health crisis, but we acknowledge that there is still more to do. Provisions contained in the Policing and Crime Act 2017 designed to improve outcomes for people in mental health crisis came into effect on 11 December 2017. Those include removing the use of police cells as places of safety for under-18s detained under sections 135 or 136, cutting the use of police cells for adults and reducing the maximum period of detention to 24 hours. We have seen a continued decrease in the use of police cells as a place of safety since 2012-13. There were only 136 instances last year, compared with some 9,000 cases in 2011-12. The Department of Health and Social Care has already made £30 million available for health-based places of safety since 2015, and I will mention some of the other investments that it is making in a moment.
I know that my hon. Friend, as he has this evening, has previously raised concerns—sometimes echoed within the police service—that police officers do not have sufficient powers to act quickly in relation to people in private homes who are mentally distressed. In the NHS, home treatment teams serve to support people in acute mental crisis in their homes, so that they do not need to be admitted to hospital. But, of course, when a person does not allow services to help them, the burden often falls on police officers. They can often find themselves among the first to be called to assist a person in their home, as my hon. Friend has experienced, only to find that they have limited legal options to resolve the situation on their own.
Police officers do have the powers to act to prevent crime and to protect people and property from serious harm, but at the moment the Government do not  believe they should be given the responsibility for removing people from their homes without due process. The police are not mental health practitioners, and it is essential that a professional assessment is made so that people get the support they need. At present, officers can support mental health professionals who have obtained a section 135 warrant to remove a person from a private address, and we believe that is the right and proportionate approach to those in their own homes.
Health and Home Office Ministers considered legislating for additional powers following their 2014 review of sections 135 and 136, but decided on balance that such new powers were not appropriate, a position that this Government continue to hold. Rather than circumvent the need for a warrant, I am clear that a more satisfactory response is to ensure that the necessary mental health crisis care services are in place throughout the country to provide the responses that people need. We wish, where possible, to reduce the frequency of detentions under the Act and to prevent people from reaching a crisis state. We will keep this issue under review and continue to work with the police, in conjunction with  other partners, to better understand the precise scope and nature of mental health demand, and distinguish where the police may need to continue to engage and ensure that other services need to play a bigger role.
As my hon. Friend will know, there has been a huge rise in the demand for mental health services both within and outside the health service. Given what I have said about the amount of police time spent in engaging with mental health crises, missing persons or whatever it might be, this is definitely something on which we need to work. If he believes this—and he has allies, such as his friend Professor Rix, who may be able to sway minds—I would be more than willing to meet him in the Home Office to discuss what more we can do. It is certainly the case that, on top of the enormous investment in mental health provision through the national health service that we will be seeing over the next few months and years, we all need to look at and think about the legislation in this area, and I would be more than happy to do so in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.